Shillong, March 3: Social activist and CoMSO adviser Cherian Momin has issued a detailed constitutional rebuttal opposing recent remarks by former Balachanda MDC Sofiur Rahman and S.G. Esamatur Mominin on eligibility criteria for contesting elections to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC).
In a press statement released from Tura, Momin asserted that the GHADC draws 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 to produce a valid Scheduled Tribe certificate in order to contest GHADC elections is constitutionally sound and consistent with the objectives of the Sixth Schedule.
Referring to Articles 244(2) and 275(1) of the Constitution, Momin argued that the Sixth Schedule creates a distinct governance framework for tribal regions aimed at preserving indigenous identity, customary laws and traditional institutions. He emphasised that the GHADC is not a general representative body similar to a municipal or legislative institution constituted under ordinary statutory provisions, but a constitutionally protected authority empowered to legislate on subjects such as land, inheritance, village administration, marriage and social practices within tribal communities.
Responding to arguments citing Articles 14, 15, 19 and 326—relating to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression and universal adult suffrage—Momin said these provisions must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes. He pointed out 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 contended that long-term residence in the Garo Hills does not automatically confer the right to represent a constitutionally distinct tribal institution. He described the ST certificate requirement as a procedural safeguard intended to preserve the constitutional character and purpose of the GHADC.
Calling upon Rahman and Mominin to withdraw their statements, Momin said that any challenge to the eligibility criteria should be pursued through constitutional remedies under Articles 226 or 32 rather than through public assertions 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 democratic and federal system and that its integrity must be upheld.
