Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Leader of Opposition and former Chief Minister Mukul Sangma has called for an independent inquiry into the unrest gripping the Garo Hills region, warning that the situation demands a careful, constitutionally grounded response rather than rushed enforcement.
Sangma made his position clear after meeting the Governor in Shillong alongside TMC legislator Miani D Shira, with whom he submitted a formal memorandum outlining his concerns.
Also Read: BJP reaches out to sitting, former legislators amid political churn in Meghalaya
At the heart of Sangma's statement is a pointed caution about how enforcement agencies are handling the situation on the ground.
He expressed serious concern over reports of indiscriminate arrests, arguing that detaining people without proper verification risks causing a miscarriage of justice — and, paradoxically, allowing the real culprits to escape accountability.
"Such developments may worsen law-and-order conditions and erode confidence in the authorities," he warned, calling for enforcement to be grounded in transparency, accountability, and impartiality.
Rather than leaving the investigation to existing administrative channels, Sangma has called for a structured, independent inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
He argued that such a probe would ensure a fact-based and transparent examination of how the unrest began and how it has developed — free from political interference.
Sangma also flagged the possibility of vested interests or external influences playing a role in the unrest, though he stressed that the immediate priority must remain restoring normalcy and rebuilding public trust.
Beyond the law-and-order dimension, Sangma turned his attention to the institutional question now facing the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC).
He urged all GHADC members to set aside political differences and work collectively toward a legislative resolution — stressing that any decision on the Council's future must emerge through due process, including a formal resolution in the House, and not be pre-empted by unilateral action.
The timing of Sangma's intervention is significant. The GHADC's term officially ended on March 18, triggering a constitutional question under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India about whether to extend the Council's term or hold fresh elections.
The state government has invoked provisions that allow for a six-month extension. Sangma, however, maintained that elections cannot realistically be held until the core issues fuelling the unrest are resolved — making the path forward a delicate balance of constitutional process and ground realities.
His position is clear: the process must be followed, but it must also be honest about what the current situation on the ground actually allows.