Meghalaya: Activist defends ST certificate rule for GHADC polls

Guwahati: Social activist and CoMSO adviser Cherian Momin has issued a rebuttal to recent remarks by former Balachanda MDC Sofiur Rahman and S.G. Esamatur Mominin regarding eligibility criteria for contesting elections to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC).

In a statement, Momin asserted that the GHADC derives its authority from the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India and was established to safeguard and promote tribal self-governance in designated areas. He maintained that the requirement of a valid Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate for candidates contesting GHADC elections is constitutionally sound and aligned with the objectives of the Sixth Schedule.

Referring to Articles 244(2) and 275(1), Momin said the Sixth Schedule provides a distinct governance framework for tribal regions to protect indigenous identity, customary laws and traditional institutions. He emphasised that the GHADC is not comparable to a municipal body or a legislative institution created under ordinary statutory law, but is a constitutionally recognised authority empowered to legislate on matters such as land, inheritance, village administration, marriage and social practices within tribal communities.

Responding to arguments citing Articles 14, 15, 19 and 326 — which relate to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression and universal adult suffrage, Momin said these provisions must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional safeguards for Scheduled Tribes. He noted that the Constitution provides for reservation of seats under Articles 330 and 332 and establishes special governance mechanisms under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to ensure substantive equality and address historical marginalisation.

Momin further argued that long-term residence in the Garo Hills does not automatically confer eligibility to represent a constitutionally distinct tribal institution. The requirement of an ST certificate, he said, serves as a procedural safeguard to preserve the constitutional character of the GHADC.

Calling upon Rahman and Mominin to withdraw their remarks, Momin stated that any challenge to the eligibility norms should be pursued before constitutional courts under Articles 226 or 32, rather than through public statements that could create confusion about the legal framework governing autonomous district councils.

He concluded that the Sixth Schedule embodies a constitutional commitment to tribal political autonomy within India’s federal structure, and its integrity must be upheld.