While raising queries on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), North Shillong MLA Adelbert Nongrum raised concerns about its potential implications on the state’s unique socio-religious and customary practices.
Nongrum referred to the recent implementation of the UCC and questioned whether special provisions under Article 371 of the Constitution would safeguard Meghalaya’s people from the application of such central laws. He stated that several central laws, including the UCC, might conflict with religious and social practices, customary laws, administration of justice and land rights in the state.
There has been a debate in Meghalaya over the last few weeks and months over whether the state needs Article 371 or if the Sixth Schedule provisions are enough to protect the indigenous tribals.
Responding to Nongrum, Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma acknowledged the significance of the issue and its implications for the people of Meghalaya. However, he cautioned against oversimplifying the matter, stating that Article 371 and the Sixth Schedule serve different purposes and must be understood in their respective contexts.
“It is an important subject and concern for our people. Without delving into a debate, one must understand that the Sixth Schedule grants the autonomous district councils (ADCs) the authority to legislate, as well as judicial and executive powers, which are not provided under Article 371,” Sangma said.
He further elaborated that Article 371 varies from state to state, granting different provisions in different regions.
Addressing the concern over the UCC, the CM clarified that the legislation is designed to create uniformity in civil laws but its application depends on the specific provisions of each state’s implementation. Citing the Uttarakhand UCC, Sangma pointed out that tribal laws and customs were exempted from its purview.
“At present, UCC is not on the horizon for Meghalaya and we have no plans to adopt it. We are clear that any move to introduce a UCC that dilutes the powers, customs and rights of tribal people is unacceptable to the people and the government,” he asserted.
Sangma reiterated that the matter requires a larger debate and cannot be adequately addressed through a simple question-and-answer session in the Assembly. He stressed the need for in-depth discussions to analyse the broader implications of such policies on Meghalaya’s tribal communities.
Leader of the Opposition Dr Mukul Sangma said that Parliament has amended the Sixth Schedule multiple times, gradually curtailing certain powers originally vested in the state. Earlier, the Governor had the power to decide on the application of parliamentary laws in Sixth Schedule areas but this authority has been diminished. To ensure clarity and prevent misinformation, he urged the government to facilitate a discussion comparing the mandates of Article 371 and the Sixth Schedule to help people understand their constitutional rights and avoid the politicisation of the issue.
