1996 (2) TMI 551 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Court has the power to declare a particular tribe as a Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment Act), 1976.
2. Whether the Lohar community is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the Act and the Order.
3. Whether the Hindi version of the Schedule, which mentions Lohar as Scheduled Tribes, should be enforced over the English version.
4. Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was correct in law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Power of the Court to Declare a Tribe as Scheduled Tribe:
The primary question is whether the Court can give a declaration of the social status as a Tribe or declare Lohars as Scheduled Tribes in the Act and the Schedule of the Act. Article 342(1) empowers the President, in consultation with the Governor of the concerned State, to specify the Tribes or Tribal communities which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes. Article 342(2) empowers the Parliament to amend the list of Scheduled Tribes. The Court held that it is the constitutional mandate that only the President, after consultation with the Governor, and the Parliament can specify or amend the list of Scheduled Tribes. 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.

2. Recognition of Lohar Community as Scheduled Tribe:
The appellants contended that the Lohar community was included in the Schedule under the Act as reflected in the Hindi version of the order. However, the State resisted this contention, stating that Lohars are Blacksmiths-Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the State of Bihar and not Scheduled Tribes. The Court examined various sociological texts and found that Lohars are distinct from Loharas/Lohra, who are recognized as Scheduled Tribes. The Court concluded that Lohars are Blacksmiths and belong to the OBC category, not Scheduled Tribes.

3. Enforcement of Hindi Version Over English Version:
The appellants argued that the Hindi version of the Schedule, which mentions Lohar as Scheduled Tribes, should be enforced. The Court noted that the authoritative text of all bills, amendments, and orders under the Constitution or under any law made by the Parliament shall be in the English language as per Article 348(1)(b). The Court found that the Hindi version contained a translation error where "Lohara" was incorrectly translated as "Lohar." The Court held that the English version is the authoritative text and that the Hindi version's error does not change the legal status of Lohars.

4. High Court's Dismissal of the Writ Petition:
The appellants contended that the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was wrong in law, citing previous cases where Lohars were recognized as Scheduled Tribes. However, the Court found that these decisions were based on incorrect translations and concessions made by counsel without due verification. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that Lohars are OBCs and not entitled to the status of Scheduled Tribes.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that Lohars are Other Backward Class (OBC) and not Scheduled Tribes. The Court cannot declare Lohars as equivalent to Loharas or Lohras or grant them the same status. The appeal was dismissed with costs throughout, reaffirming the consistent view that Lohars are Blacksmiths and belong to the OBC category. The Court emphasized that no direction could be issued to authorities to act contrary to the Constitution and the laws.