PIL challenges Khasi Lineage legislation, Meghalaya HC seeks AG's response
The group, Syngkhong Rymphei Thymmai, is seeking to reform or move away from the matrilineal system where lineage and inheritance pass through the mother's line.
Several provisions of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Act, 1997, sought to protect the matrilineal lineage practised by the Khasi tribals in Meghalaya.
The high court was hearing a PIL that contests the legal validity of restrictions imposed under the Act and raises concerns over the issuance of Scheduled Tribe certificates to Khasi individuals who choose to adopt surnames from their father or husband.
The immediate cause for the petition stems from a communication dated July 21, 2020, issued by the Social Welfare Department to the Deputy Commissioners of East and West Khasi Hills.
The letter had clarified that the Act did not bar individuals from adopting surnames from either parent and allowed non-Khasi wives to adopt their husband's surname.
However, the letter was withdrawn by the Department on May 21, 2024, through a communication, resulting in authorities allegedly refusing to issue ST certificates to Khasi persons using their father's or husband's surname.
The petitioner argued that as long as the individual met the bloodline and lineage requirements under the Act, as amended in 2023, the choice of surname should not be a ground for denial of certification.
In its order, a division bench comprising Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh, observed that resolution of the matter is vital in the interest of the Khasi community and stated that affidavits would be called for only if required at a later stage.
The bench directed that notice be served upon the Advocate General and listed the matter for further hearing on August 7.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Meghalaya MP seeks ILP implementation amidst fears of influx from Assam
Shillong, With growing concerns over possible influx of illegal settlers evicted from Assam, an MP from Meghalaya on Friday urged the Union home ministry to implement the Inner Line Permit system in the state, a long-pending demand that has been consistently voiced by the people over the years. Meghalaya MP seeks ILP implementation amidst fears of influx from Assam During a meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Voice of the People Party MP Ricky Syngkon expressed deep concern over the demographic pressures facing the state, citing increasing incidents of unauthorised settlements and encroachments, particularly in sensitive border and fringe areas, including along the international boundary with Bangladesh and those along the interstate boundary with Assam. "The unchecked influx of migrants poses a grave threat to the cultural identity, land rights, and socio-economic security of the tribal population of Meghalaya," Syngkon stated, while calling for urgent intervention from the Centre. The MP pointed out that neighbouring states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland are already under the ILP regime, which serves as a protective mechanism to regulate the entry of non-locals and safeguard the rights of indigenous communities. The appeal gains urgency in light of Assam's ongoing eviction drives targeting illegal settlers and undocumented immigrants, which, the MP fears, could lead to spillover migration into Meghalaya's vulnerable regions. "The implementation of ILP would fulfil a long-standing aspiration of the people and reinforce their trust in constitutional safeguards provided under the Sixth Schedule," the MP said. The demand for ILP is not new. The Meghalaya Legislative Assembly had passed a unanimous resolution in December 2019 urging the Centre to extend the ILP system to the state. Despite multiple follow-ups, the matter remains pending with the Ministry of Home Affairs. The MP also raised the issue of constitutional recognition of the Khasi language, describing it as a vital marker of Meghalaya's cultural and historical identity, and urged the Centre to act on the 2018 Assembly resolution seeking its inclusion in the Eighth Schedule. Additionally, the MP requested that directives be issued to ensure preferential employment opportunities for local tribal youth, particularly in Group 'C' and support staff positions, within central establishments in the state, in alignment with the constitutional provisions under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. The MP further called for the revival of currently non-operational air routes such as Shillong-Dimapur, Shillong-Agartala, and Shillong-Silchar to improve regional mobility, reduce travel hardship, and integrate Meghalaya more closely with the Northeast and the rest of the country. Syngkon also urged the Ministry of Tourism to upgrade the Shillong Centre of the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management into a full-fledged institute, citing its potential to emerge as a hub for tourism studies, skill development, and entrepreneurship in the region. As of now, the Centre has not taken a final decision on any of the demands. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
20 minutes ago
- The Hindu
185 displaced persons granted Indian citizenship under CAA in Gujarat
After years of uncertainty, 185 displaced persons from Pakistan were granted Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The recipients, many of whom have been residing in Gujarat's Rajkot, Morbi, and Kutch districts for several years, were handed over citizenship documents at an event in Rajkot. 'You are now citizens of the great nation - India,' Gujarat Minister of State for Home Affairs Harsh Sanghavi told the gathering. The announcement was met with chants of 'Bharat mata ki jai (Victory to mother India)' from the audience, with several recipients becoming emotional as they received their certificates. The beneficiaries included men, women, and children who migrated from Pakistan citing religious persecution and lack of security. Many belong to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities - groups recognised under the CAA as eligible for naturalisation. Among those granted citizenship was a young woman doctor who had completed her medical education in Pakistan. 'Just as she was about to begin her career, her family was forced to flee the country,' Mr. Sanghavi said. 'After years of waiting in India without legal status, she now holds official Indian citizenship,' he said. Mr. Sanghavi added that she was just one example of the many lives impacted by the law. Other beneficiaries included daily wage earners, homemakers, and elderly persons who had lived without formal citizenship for several years. Mr. Sanghavi said the Government of India is committed to supporting those who have suffered due to religious discrimination in neighbouring countries. 'This is not just the distribution of a certificate - it is the return of dignity, safety, and rights,' he said. He added that India, guided by the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family), respects all religions and safeguards the rights of the vulnerable. He credited Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah for the implementation of the CAA, calling it a step that has saved lives and restored identity to many. Mr. Sanghavi also directed local officials to facilitate the integration of the new citizens into government systems and ensure their access to schemes related to education, healthcare, housing, and livelihood. 'From today, your children will grow up with access to the same opportunities as any other Indian citizen,' he told them. Several beneficiaries expressed gratitude after receiving their citizenship certificates. 'From today, I am part of India. I feel safe. I feel recognised,' said Asha Ben Becharbhai, a resident of Rajkot. Bhavna Ben Maheshwari, who has lived in Rajkot for the past 10 years and has been working for the past eight, said, 'Now I can say without hesitation - I am an Indian citizen. I thank the government for supporting us.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Motion to remove Justice Varma to begin in Lok Sabha; ‘No doubts remain,' says govt
The notice for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma is likely to be taken up in the Lok Sabha, with that 'received' by former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar in the Rajya Sabha unlikely to be considered. The announcement by Dhankhar, as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, that he had 'received' a notice for the removal of Justice Varma from 63 Opposition MPs is believed to have triggered the series of events leading to his resignation as VP. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said: 'All the political parties have agreed that the removal of Justice Yashwant Verma has to be a joint call. Now there should be no issue with regard to which House it has to be moved. Once we have agreed that it will be moved in the Lok Sabha… it will be concurred in the Rajya Sabha as per rule… So we should not remain under any doubt that the discussion and the motion, everything, will begin in the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha, as per rule, will give concurrence and there will be a thorough discussion in the Rajya Sabha also.' This was decided by consensus among all parties, Rijiju emphasised. 'The agreement amongst all parties is that the motion for removal of Justice Varma will begin in the Lok Sabha. It will be taken up in the Lok Sabha and then subsequently it will be concurred by the Rajya Sabha. That is the agreement of all the parties.' While presiding over the Rajya Sabha Monday, hours before he resigned, Dhankhar said he had 'received a notice of motion' from the Opposition for constituting a statutory committee for removal of Justice Varma. He added: 'I direct the Secretary General to find out whether a similar motion has been moved in the House of People, the Lok Sabha… This is being done for the purpose that under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, the procedure (in such a case) is different.' Under the Act, if a notice to remove a judge is presented in both the Houses of Parliament on the same day, then the committee for inquiry is to be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Since Dhankhar's resignation, the post of Chairman is vacant. Having made its intent clear to act on impeaching Justice Varma – over the alleged recovery of a stack of notes from his home – the government, which had initiated its notice in the Lok Sabha, was taken by surprise by Dhankhar's move. The government notice, signed by 145 MPs, including Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, had been handed over to the Lok Sabha Speaker earlier in the day. Dhankhar's move meant the Opposition could steal the government limelight on an issue of crucial import, dealing with judicial accountability. Sources told The Indian Express that officials in the Secretariats of the two Houses are now verifying whether remarks made by Dhankhar as Rajya Sabha Chair on the Opposition notice were 'legally valid'. That rests on determining whether Dhankhar's statement meant that the notice had only been 'received' by the Chair, or 'accepted' by the Chair. As per one line of opinion, Dhankhar's remarks do not amount to 'admission' of the Opposition notice as they 'didn't follow the formalities'. If the notice in the Rajya Sabha is determined to be only 'received' by the House and not yet 'accepted', the motion in the Lok Sabha will be considered to be at play. Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary said a mere announcement by Dhankhar didn't mean much, as there is nothing in the process for removal of a judge concerning that. 'When a presiding officer receives a notice, he or she has to make a preliminary examination into the notice, look into the evidence annexed by them and decide the admissibility. They can reject or accept it. In the issue of this notice, the Chairman (Dhankhar) does not seem to have done any of these,' Achary said, adding that 'there is no requirement regarding reading it (the notice) in the House'. Sources said the government is also apprehensive about legal issues if Dhankhar's remarks are considered as 'acceptance' of the notice to remove Justice Varma, as this would entail setting up a joint committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman to probe the charges against him. Since the office of the Vice President is currently vacant, the presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha is Deputy Chairman Harivansh. Whether Harivansh can take the place of the Chairman in constituting the committee is uncertain legal territory. The constitutional provisions regarding the removal of a judge mention specifically the 'Chairman of the Rajya Sabha' and not the 'Vice President'. But, sources said, the government does not want any room for a legal challenge, delaying the impeachment process against Justice Varma. But, if the notice is considered as accepted only in the Lok Sabha, then it is up to Speaker Om Birla to appoint the three-member inquiry committee, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The committee is required to have one member who is either the CJI or a judge of the Supreme Court; a member from among the Chief Justices or judges of high courts; and a distinguished jurist. One reason the government believes it is on solid ground in not considering the Rajya Sabha notice is that there are doubts whether it was 'complete' or 'valid', since it did not have any annexures or supporting material attached to make a case for impeaching Justice Varma. The motion reportedly only cites then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's communication to the President and Prime Minister calling for impeachment of Justice Varma, along with the findings of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry report. Sources point out that the Presidential secretariat had communicated with the Lok Sabha Speaker regarding this inquiry report, and not the Rajya Sabha. However, Achary said the law itself does not require attached annexures to accept a notice.
