Serial No.02 Supp List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C). No. 93 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 Shri. Enamul Hoque, Son of Late Haji Kolim Uddin, Resident of village Namabilla, P.O- Haripur, P.S. Rajabala, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya.

…Petitioner -Versus-

1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by The Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, District Council Affairs Department, Shillong, Meghalaya.

3. The Principal Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya, Shillong.

4. The Deputy Commissioner/Returning Officer, Tura, West Garo Hills.

5. The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Represented by its Secretary to the Executive Committee.

6. The Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura.

…Respondents Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. K.Paul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K.Hassan, Adv.

Mr. A.H.Hazarika, Adv.

Mr. S.Chanda, Adv.

Mr. S.A.Sheikh, Adv. Ms. M.Rahman, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.Kumar, AG with Ms. S.Laloo, GA for R 1-4.

Mr. S.Dey, Adv. for R 5 & 6.

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

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 09- 02-2026. 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 & 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 dated 17-02-2026.

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 dated 17-02-2026, 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 resoluti