Meghalaya activist defends ST certificate rule for GHADC, rebuts former MDC’s claims

Social activist and CoMSO adviser Cherian Momin has issued a strong constitutional rebuttal opposing recent statements by former Balachanda MDC Sofiur Rahman and S.G. Esamatur Mominin regarding eligibility to contest elections to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC).

In a press statement released from Tura, Momin asserted that the GHADC derives its authority from the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India and was created specifically to protect and promote tribal self-governance in designated areas. He maintained that the requirement of producing a valid Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate to contest GHADC elections is constitutionally consistent and aligned with the purpose of the Sixth Schedule.

Citing Articles 244(2) and 275(1) of the Constitution, Momin argued that the Sixth Schedule provides a differentiated governance framework for tribal areas to safeguard indigenous identity, customary laws, and traditional institutions. He emphasised that the GHADC is not a general representative body akin to a municipal or legislative institution under ordinary statutory law, but a constitutionally protected entity designed to legislate on matters such as land, inheritance, village administration, marriage and social practices within tribal communities.

Responding to arguments invoking Articles 14, 15, 19 and 326—relating to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression and universal adult suffrage—Momin stated that these provisions must be read harmoniously with protective measures for Scheduled Tribes. He noted that the Constitution itself provides for reservation of seats under Articles 330 and 332 and recognises special governance mechanisms under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to ensure substantive equality and prevent historical marginalisation.

Momin contended that long-term residence in the Garo Hills does not automatically confer eligibility to represent a constitutionally distinct tribal institution. He stressed that the ST certificate requirement is a procedural safeguard intended to preserve the constitutional character of the GHADC.

Calling on Rahman and Mominin to retract their remarks, he said any challenge to the eligibility criteria should be pursued through constitutional courts under Articles 226 or 32 rather than through public assertions that may create confusion about the legal framework governing autonomous district councils.

The statement underscored that the Sixth Schedule represents a constitutional commitment to tribal political autonomy within India’s democratic and federal structure, and that its integrity must be upheld.