Guwahati: Senior BJP leader and Meghalaya Cabinet Minister Sanbor Shullai on Monday sought Governor Chandrashekhar H. Vijayashankar’s intervention against the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non-Tribals) (Amendment) Bill, 2026, arguing that the proposed legislation is constitutionally flawed and falls outside the legislative powers of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC).
The Bill proposes to make a service licence mandatory for every non-tribal employee engaged in trade and business establishments.
Shullai submitted a petition to the Governor, requesting that assent to the legislation be withheld after the KHADC recently passed the amendment.
In the petition, he argued that the Council had exceeded the authority granted to Autonomous District Councils under Paragraph 10 of the Sixth Schedule by introducing provisions that go beyond its constitutional jurisdiction.
Citing the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non-Tribals) Regulation Act, 1954, Shullai said the law was originally framed to regulate trade conducted by non-tribals.
He added that non-tribal traders have been complying with the legal framework enforced by both the Meghalaya government and the District Council for decades.
He contended that the amendment attempts to regulate employees working in businesses instead of limiting its scope to traders, a move he said is beyond the constitutional powers of the KHADC.
Shullai further argued that approving the Bill could expose the District Council to legal challenges from business establishments.
He also maintained that the amendment imposes additional regulatory requirements without adequate safeguards or consultation with stakeholders.
Referring to Paragraph 12A of the Sixth Schedule, he said any law passed by a District Council that is inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly becomes invalid to the extent of the inconsistency, with the state law prevailing.
He also maintained that the state’s licensing system was designed to regulate migrant labour and should not be used against permanent non-tribal residents, describing such an approach as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Shullai further argued that legislation governing trading by non-tribals cannot be extended to regulate employer-employee relationships. He also claimed that the proposed amendment violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
He alleged that the amendment was introduced for political considerations despite being incapable of withstanding constitutional scrutiny.