Shillong: The Meghalaya Legislative Assembly on Wednesday unanimously passed a government resolution opposing uranium mining and the establishment of any uranium ore processing facility in the State, with Opposition leaders backing the move while calling for stronger legal and political safeguards to ensure the issue is not revived in the future.
Moving the resolution, Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma said it formally reflected the long-standing opposition of the people of Meghalaya to uranium mining. The Assembly urged the Government of India, the Department of Atomic Energy and Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) not to permit, pursue or undertake uranium mining in the State, including the proposed Kylleng, Pyndengsohiong Mawthabah (KPM) project.
The House also called for the closure of any ongoing activities related to uranium mining in Meghalaya.
The resolution cited the State’s customary landholding system and constitutional protections under the Sixth Schedule. It noted that land in Meghalaya’s autonomous districts is largely held under community, clan and individual customary tenure, with Autonomous District Councils exercising legislative authority over the allotment, occupation and use of land.
The Assembly also referred to the Supreme Court’s July 3, 2019 judgment in Civil Appeal No. 10720 of 2018, involving the State of Meghalaya and the All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee and others.
The resolution stated that the judgment recognised the rights of private and community landowners in Meghalaya over both surface and sub-soil resources, including minerals beneath their land.
Uranium deposits have been identified in Domiasiat, Wahkyn and Lostoin in the West Khasi Hills and South West Khasi Hills districts. The KPM project proposes open-cast uranium mining along with an ore processing plant.
The Assembly cited the environmental sensitivity of the proposed mining areas, including their exceptionally high rainfall, steep terrain and vulnerability to landslides. It noted that the areas form catchments for streams and rivers that support drinking water, agriculture, fisheries and livelihoods across a wider region.
The resolution said affected communities had not been satisfied that adequate safeguards had been demonstrated for containing mining overburden, mill tailings and process effluent under such conditions and over the long periods involved.
It further said opposition to uranium mining had persisted through traditional institutions, Autonomous District Councils, student and civil society organisations and elected representatives.
The Assembly maintained that the free, prior and informed consent of affected communities had never been obtained and that no uranium mining lease had been granted in Meghalaya.
It also took note of a September 8, 2025 Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change concerning the exemption of mining projects involving atomic minerals from public consultation under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
The resolution further referred to a statement by the Union Minister of State in charge of the Department of Atomic Energy during a visit to Shillong that no decision had been taken on uranium mining in Meghalaya and that the matter remained under examination.
Opposition backs resolution, seeks stronger safeguards
Leader of the Opposition Dr Mukul Sangma welcomed the government’s decision, saying the people of Meghalaya had opposed uranium mining “tooth and nail” for decades.
He said the opposition was not based on unfounded fears but on scientific concerns relating to the State’s unique geography, high rainfall and environmental vulnerability.
However, Dr Mukul cautioned that passing the resolution should not mark the end of the government’s responsibility. He called for the restoration and protection of landowners’ and communities’ rights over mineral resources beneath their land.
Referring to the 2019 Supreme Court judgment, he said recognition of sub-soil rights should form an important part of the State’s approach to mineral resources generally, rather than being confined to uranium.
“If landowners have rights over the minerals beneath their land, those rights must be restored to the people,” he said, arguing that traditional landowners, including Nokmas, should not remain disconnected from mineral resources beneath their land.
He also called for a comprehensive scientific survey of mineral-bearing areas and greater awareness among communities about the resources beneath their land, along with stronger institutional capacity to protect communities from exploitation and illegal mining.
VPP chief Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit also supported the resolution but questioned whether the Centre would act on it.
He pointed to the 2019 resolution adopted by the previous MDA government seeking implementation of the Inner Line Permit system in Meghalaya, saying he had not seen any official response from the Government of India.
Basaiawmoit said his opposition to uranium mining had strengthened after he visited Jaduguda, where uranium mining has been carried out. Recalling what he described as a deeply disturbing experience, he said the area appeared like a “ghost town” and that he had witnessed people suffering from serious illnesses.
He questioned whether India necessarily required Meghalaya’s uranium resources, arguing that alternative sources and technologies should be examined as the country expands its nuclear-energy and technological capabilities.
Basaiawmoit also urged legislators to make a collective commitment to oppose any attempt by the Centre to revive uranium mining against the wishes of Meghalaya’s people.
UDP seeks stronger historical and constitutional case
UDP MLA Paul Lyngdoh described the resolution as an important and historic step but argued that some doors should not merely be closed but “welded shut” against any future attempt to revive uranium mining.
Lyngdoh called for Meghalaya’s historical and constitutional position on land and natural resources to be incorporated into the State’s case.
He referred to the 25 Khasi States and their accession to India through the Instrument of Accession, arguing that they had not signed an Instrument of Merger. He said the distinction was significant because certain powers relating to land, forests, water, excise and revenue were retained under the terms of accession.
Lyngdoh suggested that these historical rights should be reflected in the Assembly’s position to strengthen the State’s case for protecting its people and natural resources.
He also recalled the history of the uranium proposal. Lyngdoh said that in 2004, when experimental uranium mining was being considered, he had been a Cabinet member and suggested a study tour to areas where uranium mining had already taken place.
A team led by then Health Minister Deborah Marak subsequently visited Jaduguda, along with Saidullah Nongrum and student representatives, including KSU representatives Samuel Jarwa and Hamlet Dohling.
The Assembly’s unanimous resolution brought the government and Opposition together on an issue that has remained politically sensitive in Meghalaya for decades.
While Dr Mukul focused on restoring mineral rights to traditional landowners, Basaiawmoit sought a firm political commitment to resist any future attempt to revive mining, and Lyngdoh called for Meghalaya’s historical and constitutional claims over land and natural resources to be incorporated into the State’s case.
The resolution now places Meghalaya’s opposition to uranium mining formally on record and asks the Centre, the Department of Atomic Energy and UCIL to refrain from pursuing any uranium mining or processing project in the State.
Also Read: Beyond 66 Books: Hechuya Magh on Naga literature, identity and finding her voice