The Meghalaya High Court has taken serious note of a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, after it was brought to the Court’s notice that the same individual was functioning both as Secretary to the Executive Committee and as Judge of the District Council Court of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC), Tura. Holding the situation to be impermissible and alarming, the Court directed that the officer concerned must forthwith cease to function in the executive capacity.
The public interest litigation was filed after information obtained under the Right to Information Act revealed that the Secretary to the Executive Committee, GHADC, Tura, was also acting as the Judge of the District Council Court, GHADC, Tura. The petitioner contended that such an arrangement undermined judicial independence and violated the constitutional scheme, apart from being contrary to Rules 10 and 11 of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953.
While examining the matter, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed that the Constitution mandates a clear separation between the legislative, executive and judicial functions, and that the facts disclosed reflected a failure to separate the judiciary through any official notification. The Court noted that although Shri S.R.R. Marak had been designated as Additional Judge of the District Council Court with effect from August 30, 2023, he was simultaneously entrusted with the role of Secretary to the Executive Committee, which was wholly impermissible.
In view of the above, the High Court directed that Shri S.R.R. Marak shall immediately cease to function as Secretary to the Executive Committee of the GHADC. At the same time, considering the need for continuity in judicial work, the Court permitted him to continue as Additional Judge of the District Council Court, Tura, and requested the State Government to take steps to obtain the Governor’s approval for his appointment in accordance with law.
The Court further directed the State Government and the District Council to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to comply with the order, and listed the matter for further consideration on January 28, 2026.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner – Advocate P.T. Sangma,
For the Respondents – Advocate General A. Kumar, with Additional Advocate General N.D. Chullai, Government Advocate E.R. Chyne, and Advocate S. Dey.
