Petitioner sought directions to include various castes as Scheduled Tribes. Courts held Parliament exclusively determines ST lists under Article 342. PIL dismissed as beyond judicial competence.
N/A
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil1014.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.10 OF 2014
Akhil Maharashtra Vadar Samaj Sangthna, through its Executive Member, Praji s/o Baburao Manjule, age: 49 years, Occ: Agri. & Social Work, R/o Bank Colony, Osmanabad, Tq. and District Osmanabad.
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
Respondents
Mr.R.V.Naiknavare, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to 5.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE :27th March, 2014
ORDER (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 This is a Public Interest Litigation presented by Akhil Maharashtra Vadar Samaj Sangthna, requesting this Court to issue directions to the Respondents to include castes/communities known as Vaddar, Berad, Bester, Bhamta, Kaikadi, Kanzarbata, Cutbu, Lamani, Rajput Bhamta, Ramoshi, Wagari and Chpparband and classify them as Scheduled Tribes. A prayer is also made to
{2}
pil1014.odt
issue directions to the Respondents to consider the report of Justice R.M.Bapat Commission and issue necessary directions for inclusion of aforesaid castes/communities in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
2 According to petitioner, the castes/communities presently included in De-notified Tribes in the State of Maharashtra are having all characteristics present for their inclusion in Scheduled Tribes.
3 The prayer made by the petitioner, in the instant petition, requesting for inclusion of the castes in the list of Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 of the Constitution is beyond competence of the High Court. It is only the Parliament which is entrusted with the powers to make a law for inclusion of various castes/communities in the Scheduled Tribe prescribing list of tribes under Article 342 of the Constitution.
4 The issue is no more res integra in view of various judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under clause (1) of Article 342 only by the Parliament by law and not by any other authority. It is not open to the State Government, Courts or Tribunals or any other authority
{3}
pil1014.odt
to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the Notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342. ( State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind , reported in 2001 (1) SCC 4.
5 In the case of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi Vs. State of Kerala , reported in 1994 (1) SCC 359, the Supreme Court was posed a question as regards validity of the decision of the State of Kerala not to treat members of the Thandan community belonging to the erstwhile Malabar District, including the present Palghat District. While dealing with the issue, the Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs no.17 and 18 of the judgment, as quoted below:
“17 We may usefully draw attention to the judgment of a bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura. This judgment considered the Constitution bench judgments in B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa and Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh and certain other judgments. It held that the two Constitution bench judgments indicated that any amendment to the Presidential Orders could only be by legislation. The Court could not assume jurisdiction and order an enquiry to determine whether the terms of the Presidential Order included a particular community. A State Government was entitled to initiate appropriate proposals for modification in cases where it was satisfied that modifications were necessary and, if after appropriate enquiry, the
pil1014.odt
{4}
authorities were satisfied that a modification was required, an amendment could be undertaken as provided by the Constitution.
18 These judgments leave no doubt that the Scheduled Castes Order has to be applied as it stands and no enquiry can be held or evidence let in to determine whether or not some particular community falls within it or outside it. No action to modify the plain effect of the Scheduled Castes Order, except as contemplated by Article 341, is valid.”
6 In the matter of N ityanand Sharma and another Vs.
State of Bihar and others , reported in (1996) 3 SCC 576, the question arose for consideration was as regards powers of the Court to declare a particular tribe to be Scheduled Tribe under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment Act), 1976. While dealing with the issue, the Supreme Court has reiterated its stand and observed in paragraph 15 of the judgment, as quoted below:
“15 It is for Parliament to amend the law and the Schedule and include in and exclude from the Schedule, a tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community for the State, District or region and its declaration is conclusive. The Court has no power to declare synonyms as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the Order or include in or substitute any caste/tribe etc. It would thus be
pil1014.odt
{5}
clear that for the purpose of the Constitution, “Scheduled Tribes” defined under Article 366 (25) as substituted (sic) under the Act, and the Second Schedule thereunder are conclusive. Though evidence may be admissible to a limited extent of finding out whether the community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the Schedule concerned, the Court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such caste or tribe.”
7 In view of the reasons recorded above, request made by the petitioner, in the instant petition, does not deserve favourable consideration. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is devoid of substance.
8 Hence, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) stands
dismissed.
A.M. BADAR R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE
adb/pil1014
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has the competence to issue directions for inclusion of specific castes in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
Whether the matter of including castes in the Scheduled Tribe list is within the exclusive power of Parliament under Article 342.
Whether the report of the Justice R.M.Bapat Commission warrants judicial directions for inclusion of communities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind, 2001 (1) SCC 4 · Who else cites this
Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna SamithiReferred¶25
Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi Vs. State of Kerala, 1994 (1) SCC 359 · Who else cites this
Nityanand SharmaReferred¶32
Nityanand Sharma and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, (1996) 3 SCC 576 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Akhil Maharashtra Vadar Samaj Sangthna (through Executive Member, Praji s/o Baburao Manjule)
The State of Maharashtra
R.M.Borde
A.M.Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
