SHILLONG, July 23: The High Court of Meghalaya has sought a response from the Advocate General after a group challenged the provisions of a legislation that restricts issuance of Scheduled Tribes certificates to people who opt to use their father’s or husband’s surname.
The group, Syngkhong Rymphei Thymmai, is seeking to reform or move away from the matrilineal system where lineage and inheritance pass through the mother’s line.
Several provisions of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Khasi Social Custom of Lineage) Act, 1997, sought to protect the matrilineal lineage practised by the Khasi tribals in Meghalaya.
The high court was hearing a PIL filed by Syngkhong Rymphei Thymmai that contests the legal validity of restrictions imposed under the Act and raises concerns over the issuance of Scheduled Tribe certificates to Khasi individuals who choose to adopt surnames from their father or husband.
The immediate cause for the petition stems from a communication dated July 21, 2020, issued by the Social Welfare Department to the deputy commissioners of East and West Khasi Hills.
The letter had clarified that the Act did not bar individuals from adopting surnames from either parent and allowed non-Khasi wives to adopt their husband’s surname.
However, the letter was withdrawn by the Department on May 21, 2024, through a communication, resulting in authorities allegedly refusing to issue ST certificates to Khasi persons using their father’s or husband’s surname.
The petitioner argued that as long as the individual met the bloodline and lineage requirements under the Act, as amended in 2023, the choice of surname should not be a ground for denial of certification.
In its order, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura “We do not think at this stage for disposal of the public interest litigation, affidavits are required. If affidavits are required at a later stage, we shall call for them but in the interest of the Khasi community at large, this issue should be resolved as expeditiously as possible,” the order said.
The court directed that notice be served upon the Advocate General and listed the matter for further hearing on August 7. (With agency inputs)
