In a complaint submitted to the GHADC Executive Committee, the organization described the appointment as a "constitutional impropriety" and questioned its legality under the Sixth Schedule. The group argued that the move is arbitrary, lacks statutory backing, and undermines the principles of decentralised tribal administration.
The ASPF specifically challenged Sangma's eligibility, raising concerns over his tribal status. It also alleged a lack of transparency and a potential conflict of interest, stating that the appointment threatens the objectives of self-governance.
The organisation has demanded that the appointment be declared invalid and the notification withdrawn. It further called for a transparent verification of Sangma's Scheduled Tribe (ST) status by a competent authority.
"Any further actions must be guided by the principles of legality, transparency, accountability, and the protection of tribal rights," the ASPF stated.