By PTI
SHILLONG: The Meghalaya High Court has ordered an interim stay on physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts on the ground in connection with an interstate border pact signed by chief ministers of Assam and Meghalaya earlier this year.
Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma and his counterpart Himanta Biswa Sarma had in March signed an MoU for demarcating the border in at least six of the 12 contested locations that often raised tensions between the two states.
Justice H S Thangkhiew ordered the interim stay till the next date of hearing on February 6, 2023, on a petition filed by four ‘traditional chiefs’ of Meghalaya.
“It is however understood that during the intervening period, no physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts on the ground, pursuant to the MoU dated 29.03. 2022 shall be carried out, till the next date,” Justice Thangkhiew said.
The traditional chiefs’ in their petition had urged the high court to set aside the MoU signed between the two northeastern states, claiming that it violated provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for administration of tribal areas.
SHILLONG: The Meghalaya High Court has ordered an interim stay on physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts on the ground in connection with an interstate border pact signed by chief ministers of Assam and Meghalaya earlier this year.
Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma and his counterpart Himanta Biswa Sarma had in March signed an MoU for demarcating the border in at least six of the 12 contested locations that often raised tensions between the two states.
Justice H S Thangkhiew ordered the interim stay till the next date of hearing on February 6, 2023, on a petition filed by four ‘traditional chiefs’ of Meghalaya.
“It is however understood that during the intervening period, no physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts on the ground, pursuant to the MoU dated 29.03. 2022 shall be carried out, till the next date,” Justice Thangkhiew said.
The traditional chiefs’ in their petition had urged the high court to set aside the MoU signed between the two northeastern states, claiming that it violated provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for administration of tribal areas.
