Meghalaya High Court to review legislation impacting surname choice in the matrilineal Khasi community, as legal challenges arise over ST certificate eligibility linked to surname restrictions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MEGHALAYA: The High Court of Meghalaya has initiated judicial scrutiny over a contentious issue surrounding the issuance of Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificates in the matrilineal Khasi community.
This scrutiny follows a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenges the validity of a law restricting ST certificates for individuals adopting their father’s or husband’s surname.
Background
The contested legislation, the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Khasi Social Custom of Lineage) Act, 1997, was enacted to preserve the matrilineal identity of the Khasi community. In this unique societal structure, lineage and inheritance are traced through the mother, and the youngest daughter traditionally inherits family property.
However, a group named Syngkhong Rympei Thymmai, which advocates for a shift toward a patrilineal system, has filed a PIL questioning the legal basis of restrictions imposed under the Act. Their primary contention is that the adoption of a father’s or husband’s surname should not be grounds for denying ST certification, especially if the applicant satisfies the bloodline and lineage criteria.
The petition refers to a 2020 letter from Meghalaya’s Social Welfare Department, which clarified that the Lineage Act allowed individuals to adopt surnames from either parent. It even permitted non-Khasi women to adopt their Khasi husband’s surname.
ALSO READ: Notable Judgments by Justice Yashwant Varma: Delhi High Court
However, this letter was withdrawn in May 2024, allegedly leading authorities to begin denying ST certificates to Khasi individuals who did not use their mother’s surname. This move sparked widespread concern and prompted the current litigation.
Issue Before the Court
The crux of the dispute lies in whether surname preference should override an individual’s ethnic lineage when determining eligibility for ST certification.
Petitioners argue that this undermines the fundamental identity of a person who is biologically Khasi but chooses a different surname for personal or societal reasons. They maintain that as long as an individual meets the bloodline and lineage requirements under the 2023 amended provisions of the Act, surname alone should not disqualify them.
Court’s Order
On July 23, 2025, the High Court directed the State’s Advocate General to respond to the PIL. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh, noted that while affidavits are not yet necessary, the matter needs swift resolution in the interest of justice and the community at large.
“We do not think, at this stage, that for the disposal of the public interest litigation, affidavits are required. If affidavits are required at a later stage, we shall call for them, but in the interest of the Khasi community at large, this issue should be resolved as expeditiously as possible.”
The case is scheduled for its next hearing on August 7.
Case Title: Syngkhong Rympei Thymmai vs The State of Meghalaya & ors.
PIL No. 5 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Meghalaya High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
