Background:
The Union government has renewed efforts to extract uranium deposits in Meghalaya, a move strongly opposed by Khasi tribal groups since the late 1980s. The resistance stems from concerns over land rights, ecological security, and cultural autonomy in the tribal-dominated region.
Policy Action Sparks Controversy
- The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued an Office Memorandum (OM) exempting projects involving atomic, critical, and strategic minerals from mandatory public consultation under the environmental clearance process.
- This has intensified local backlash, as tribal groups argue that the exemption undermines democratic participation and environmental safeguards.
Tribal Institutions Invoke Constitutional Protections
- Khasi civil society groups have urged the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) to assert its authority under the Sixth Schedule to block mining activities without community consent.
- Similar precedents exist—tribal communities in Niyamgiri (Odisha, 2013) successfully used constitutional provisions to defend land rights against extractive projects.
Environmental and Health Risks Highlighted
- Uranium mining is known to generate radioactive waste, contaminate water sources, and cause irreversible ecological damage.
- Protests are informed by past experiences in Jharkhand’s Singhbhum district, where the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) faced allegations of radiation-linked health hazards and loss of livelihood.
Demands for Consent-Based Governance
- Activists insist on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)—a global principle for indigenous rights—before approving any mining projects.
- They claim that the Centre views tribal lands merely as “resource frontiers” for national extraction, rather than respecting customary ownership and ecological heritage.
Possible Legal and Political Fallout
- Legal experts suggest the OM may be challenged in court, as it dilutes constitutional protections under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules.
- Critics warn that if the OM remains, it could set a dangerous precedent, weakening participatory environmental governance across India.
Need for Dialogue and Constitutional Sensitivity
The article argues that the Centre should withdraw the OM and engage with tribal stakeholders through dialogue and mutual trust instead of coercion. It emphasizes that developmental initiatives must uphold constitutional safeguards and tribal self-governance.
Key Concepts
| Term | Explanation |
| Office Memorandum (OM) | A government policy directive issued without legislative oversight; may bypass consultation and scrutiny. |
| Fifth Schedule | Provides protections for Scheduled Areas with tribal populations in mainland states. |
| Sixth Schedule | Grants autonomy to tribal areas in Northeast India through Autonomous District Councils. |
| FPIC Principle | Ensures communities’ right to be consulted and give consent before resource extraction projects begin. |