Guwahati: Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma on Wednesday ruled out any changes to the state’s 1972 Reservation Policy, cautioning that any modification could put the existing 85 per cent quota for Scheduled Tribes at risk.
Speaking during a Zero Hour Notice and Short Duration Discussion initiated by VPP legislator Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit and North Shillong MLA Adelbert Nongrum, Sangma admitted that the state’s tribal reservation exceeds the 50 per cent benchmark laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India ruling.
However, he argued that the Meghalaya framework has remained in force for more than five decades without interruption, which strengthens its legal standing.
The Chief Minister warned that introducing a new system would expose it to fresh constitutional examination. In contrast, he said, the long-established policy is more likely to withstand scrutiny due to its historical continuity.
The discussion gained momentum after Basaiawmoit proposed raising the Khasi-Jaintia allocation to 47 per cent while keeping the Garo share at 40 per cent. He expressed disappointment over the Expert Committee’s recommendation to retain the present arrangement and said lawmakers should not avoid reform out of concern over possible court challenges.
According to him, the suggestion was intended to respond to increasing demand for opportunities among educated Khasi-Jaintia youth without affecting Garo representation.
In response, Sangma said reservation cannot be determined purely by population ratios. He pointed out that constitutional principles require proof of social and educational backwardness as the main basis for such provisions.
The Expert Committee, he added, did not find sufficient evidence to justify altering the internal distribution among tribal groups.
He also said that many stakeholders who made submissions to the panel preferred maintaining the current structure to avoid jeopardising the broader 85 per cent quota through litigation. Referring to constitutional doctrine, Sangma noted that equal treatment does not always mean identical allocation, especially when policies were originally framed to correct historical disadvantages.
Tracing the background of the issue, the Chief Minister said calls for review date back to 1987, when the Khasi Students’ Union raised the matter. A committee was formed at the time but no changes followed. He also recalled discussions held in 1971 under Meghalaya’s first Chief Minister, Williamson A. Sangma, which laid the foundation for the 1972 policy.
The decision, he said, was guided by concerns over inadequate representation and socio-economic conditions, not solely population figures.
Addressing the question of the 85 per cent limit, Sangma said that while the Supreme Court has generally prescribed a 50 per cent cap, exceptions have been recognised in states with distinct demographic realities, including tribal-majority regions. He noted that the Constitution does not prescribe a fixed numerical formula applicable to every state.
According to him, the Expert Committee examined whether the 85 per cent quota was excessive, whether the internal breakdown accurately reflected relative disadvantage, and whether revision was necessary.
The panel concluded that the existing arrangement carries a degree of protection because of the state’s unique context, whereas a new structure could face greater legal vulnerability.
Sangma acknowledged that aspirations for change are understandable but urged legislators to act within constitutional limits. He also reminded members that Meghalaya’s formation in 1972 was achieved through collective unity.
On employment concerns, the Chief Minister said government posts alone cannot address joblessness. He cited figures indicating that around 3.8 lakh employment opportunities were generated over the past eight years across sectors such as agriculture, sports, music, and private enterprise. He encouraged young people to explore entrepreneurship as an alternative path.
Responding to questions raised by Nongrum, Sangma clarified that the committee’s findings were based on legal interpretation and detailed study rather than the number of representations received. He invited members to examine the full report.
Concluding the discussion, the Chief Minister said the government remains open to further consultations with legislators and stakeholders to review the report in detail, given the sensitivity of the matter.