ENAMUL HOQUE Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing a notification dated 17-02- 2026, issued by the Chief Executive Member, GHADC pursuant to a resolution arrived at in a meeting of the Executive Committee held on 9/2/2026. By the impugned notification, the submission of a Scheduled Tribe Certificate was to be treated as a compulsory requirement at the time of filing nomination papers for election as member to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council. The grievance of the writ petitioner, who is stated to be a voter is that by the impugned notification, the respondents No. 5 and 6, by way of an executive order, cannot de-franchise legitimate non- tribal voters as this would be in violation of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, which had been framed under paragraph 2 (6) of the Sixth Schedule by the Governor. The prayer therefore, is for quashing and setting aside the impugned notification dtd. 17/2/2026.

(2.) Mr. K.Paul, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S.K.Hassan, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the notification dtd. 17/2/2026, is without any authority of law, inasmuch as, para 2 (6) of the Sixth Schedule, has vested the Governor while making Rules for the first constitution of District Councils under Sub-rule (c) & (d), with the power to lay down the qualifications for voting and qualifications for being elected to the District Council. He further submits that the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, framed under para 2 (6) at Rule 8 thereof, has prescribed the qualifications for membership which amongst other conditions at Rule 8 (c) prescribes that a person would be qualified if he is entitled to vote at the election of members of the District Council of the Autonomous District. Further, Rule 128, he submits, provided the qualifications for electors and that a person not belonging to a Schedule Tribe would not be entitled to vote unless he is a permanent resident within the territorial limits of the said Autonomous District. The petitioner, he submits being a voter, would therefore surely be eligible to contest the elections.

(3.) Coming to the impugned notification, the learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the respondents No. 5 & 6, have exceeded their jurisdiction and powers, inasmuch as, the impugned notification even if adopted by a resolution as per the mandate of Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, would have to undergo a process as provided in Rule 72, and should necessarily have the approval of the Governor. In the instant case, he submits, the respondent No. 5, on a resolution by the Executive Committee, without the same being placed before the House i.e., the District Council has sought to bring about a change in the Rules, which has adversely affected non-tribal voters and aspiring candidates. Historically, he submits, 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 Garo Hills Autonomous District Council till date. The sudden change sought to be brought about by the impugned notification, he submits, without any legislative approval is therefore incompetent and unjustified. The learned Sr. counsel in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon a decision of the erstwhile jurisdictional High Court i.e., Gauhati High Court in the case of Upendra Reang vrs. State of Tripura & 10 Ors. (1995) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 307, wherein it has been held that Rule 6 of the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (Constitution and Election) Rules, 1985, which is similar to Rule 8 of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, was not violative of paragraph 2 (6) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. He lastly submits that the law being clear, the impugned notification being illegal, is liable to be set aside and quashed.