<p>Shillong: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Meghalaya">Meghalaya </a>High Court has struck down a notification, issued by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council making Scheduled Tribe certificates compulsory for election nominations, and observed that it bypassed proper legislative procedures.</p>.<p>The notification, issued by the chief executive member of the council following a resolution of the Executive Committee last month, sought to bar non-tribals from contesting the upcoming GHADC elections.</p>.<p>The petitioner, a voter, challenged the notification, arguing that it violated the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, which govern voter and candidate qualifications.</p>.Non-tribals barred from purchasing land in Meghalaya’s Garo Hills region.<p>During the hearing on Tuesday, senior counsel for the petitioner said the notification "de-franchised legitimate non-tribal voters and candidates without amending the relevant rules", and "lacked approval from the District Council and the Governor as required under Rule 72 of the 1951 Rules".</p>.<p>The counsel also highlighted that non-tribals have historically participated in elections and served as council members since its inception in 1952.</p>.<p>The GHADC argued that the notification was aimed at protecting tribal interests amid demographic changes and relied on the emergency powers of the Executive Committee.</p>.<p>However, the high court noted that the Executive Committee could only propose rule changes, which must be approved by the District Council and the Governor before taking effect.</p>.<p>"The notification cannot pass legal scrutiny and is set aside and quashed," the court said, disposing of the writ petition. </p>
<p>Shillong: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Meghalaya">Meghalaya </a>High Court has struck down a notification, issued by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council making Scheduled Tribe certificates compulsory for election nominations, and observed that it bypassed proper legislative procedures.</p>.<p>The notification, issued by the chief executive member of the council following a resolution of the Executive Committee last month, sought to bar non-tribals from contesting the upcoming GHADC elections.</p>.<p>The petitioner, a voter, challenged the notification, arguing that it violated the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, which govern voter and candidate qualifications.</p>.Non-tribals barred from purchasing land in Meghalaya’s Garo Hills region.<p>During the hearing on Tuesday, senior counsel for the petitioner said the notification "de-franchised legitimate non-tribal voters and candidates without amending the relevant rules", and "lacked approval from the District Council and the Governor as required under Rule 72 of the 1951 Rules".</p>.<p>The counsel also highlighted that non-tribals have historically participated in elections and served as council members since its inception in 1952.</p>.<p>The GHADC argued that the notification was aimed at protecting tribal interests amid demographic changes and relied on the emergency powers of the Executive Committee.</p>.<p>However, the high court noted that the Executive Committee could only propose rule changes, which must be approved by the District Council and the Governor before taking effect.</p>.<p>"The notification cannot pass legal scrutiny and is set aside and quashed," the court said, disposing of the writ petition. </p>