By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, March 10: In a significant judgment, the High Court of Meghalaya on Tuesday quashed the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) notification, dated February 17, 2026, issued by the Chief Executive Member making submission of a Scheduled Tribe certificate compulsory for filing nomination papers for election as a member to the GHADC.
The single-judge bench of Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew passed the judgment while hearing a writ petition filed by one Enamul Hoque of Namabilla village under Rajabala Police Station in West Garo Hills, challenging the GHADC notification.
The petition contended that the GHADC Executive Committee had no power to de-franchise legitimate non-tribal voters by executive order, as this violated the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, framed under paragraph 2(6) of the Sixth Schedule.
Senior Advocate K. Paul, who represented the petition, argued that qualifications for voting and membership are governed by Rule 128 and Rule 8 of the 1951 Rules, which require only permanent residence for non-tribals and entitlement to vote. Any change, he said, must follow Rule 72: The Executive Committee drafts rules, the District Council confirms them, and the Governor approves before publication in the Gazette.
The February 17 notification bypassed this process and had not been placed before the full District Council, Paul pointed out.
He also argued that since the inception of the District Council and the framing of the Rules, non-tribals who have featured in the voters’ list, have freely voted and served as members of the GHADC till date.
“The sudden change sought to be brought about by the impugned notification without any legislative approval is therefore incompetent and unjustified,” Paul submitted.
S. Dey, appearing for the GHADC, defended the notification under Rule 29(a)(b) and Rule 30, citing demographic changes and emergency powers, and referred to an earlier judgment in WP(C) No. 3 of 2014.
Referring to the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, Dey contended that it vests the Executive Committee with powers to take up matters involving any important change in the administration of the Autonomous District and to make proposals for making regulations, rules or laws.
According to him, Rule 30 enables the Executive Committee to take up such matters should any emergency arise even when the Council is not in session.
Advocate General Amit Kumar, for the state, agreed the notification lacked legislative sanction and required amendment of Rule 128.
Quoting Rule 72 (2), Kumar submitted that the Rules confirmed by the District Council have to be sent to the District Council Affairs department and all Rules have to be approved by the Governor, before coming into force.
“…In the instant case, there has been no proposal for amendment of the Rules and the impugned notification has been issued without due process, as provided in Rule 72, being followed. Hence, by operation of law and in the absence of legislative sanction, the impugned notification cannot be said to be valid.”
Justice Thangkhiew examined paragraphs 2(6) and 2(7) of the Sixth Schedule and the 1951 Rules. He held that the Executive Committee could only propose changes; it could not unilaterally alter qualifications.
“…The impugned notification, in the considered view of this Court, would amount to only the first stage being completed, i.e., at most to only a proposal which would necessarily also have to be correspondingly accompanied with proposed amendments to Rule 8 and Rule 128 of the Rules of 1951,” Justice Thangkhiew observed, while setting aside and quashing the February 17 notification.
