The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) election is on April 10. And a controversy has erupted over the participation of non-tribals in the election. Local NGOs have not only called for barring non-tribal candidates from contesting, but also disallowing non-tribal voters from voting.
This demand was there in the past, too, when Garo activists had blamed the then Congress government for not formulating a rule to debar non-tribals from participating in council elections.
So, this means that GHADC, unlike the councils in the Khasi and the Jaintia Hills, allowed non-tribals to contest elections. This practice has been there since the inception of the council in 1952.
In the Garo hills, non-tribals can contest council elections in three out of 29 constituencies, which are Phulbari, Rajabala and Mahendraganj. According to the GHADC provisions, any non-tribal resident who has continuously stayed for 12 years in Garo hills, can vote.
But this participation has always been opposed by various NGOs and activists. While there are no constitutional or legal reasons for such opposition, the objection is primarily based on the argument that ADCs are for the protection of tribal people under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.
Recently, the All A’chik Youth Federation said the participation of non-tribals in GHADC elections stems from a lack of awareness about the full scope of tribal rights guaranteed under the Sixth Schedule.
The GHADC has recently made the ST certificate mandatory for contesting the election — a move that was criticised by former MLA SG Esthamur Mominin.
Meanwhile, a PIL was filed in the High Court seeking non-participation of non-tribals in the GHADC electoral procedure. However, the court wanted to know whether the governor approved GHADC’s resolution to make ST certificates mandatory for candidates. The next hearing is on March 9.
But before that, let us look into the legal and constitutional aspects of the participation of non-tribals in the district council elections.
According to the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, there is no particular restriction on non-tribals from contesting. Similarly, the rules regarding voting rights also do not impose any restriction on non-tribals, but specify that voters have to be permanent residents of the state. This means that non-tribals can legally contest in council elections and vote, too.
However, the KHADC (Constitution and Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2018, protect the tribal adult suffrage. It also states that provided that a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe specified in part XI-Meghalaya, of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended up to date shall not be entitled to vote.
There was also a demand for amending the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951. In Karbi Anglong, too, PILs were filed to restrict the candidacy of non-ST citizens. Although the Gauhati High Court had directed the council to frame rules, the council did not do so.
Last year, the Voice of the People’s Party raised the demand for Article 371, saying that it would provide further protection to the tribal population.
It is true that the district councils are under the Sixth Schedule’s mandate, which protects tribal rights. It is also true that there should not be any misrepresentation of the tribal populace.
However, the non-ST citizens of the state are taxpayers, and they too have to follow the district council rules when it comes to commercial transactions. Then, they should have voting rights too. And, if there are non-tribal voters, then there should be non-tribal representation in the district councils to protect the rights of that particular section of the population.
Either way — whether the non-ST population is barred or not — there has to be a clear rule stating the same. The state government should take up the issue and discuss with stakeholders to come to a conclusion and put a legal stamp on any decision taken to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise, these periodic protests and disagreements will lead to communal disharmony and impact the social fabric of the state.
