1999 (2) TMI 675 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of 'Bawas' from Sindh to claim benefits under the Nomadic Tribe category.
2. Legality of the Government Resolution dated 1.4.1987.
3. Nature of evidence required for establishing belonging to a Nomadic Tribe.
4. Necessity of establishing mutual affinity among tribal communities specified in the Schedule.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of 'Bawas' from Sindh to Claim Benefits Under the Nomadic Tribe Category:
The respondent challenged the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Additional Commissioner's orders, which denied her the benefit of reservation for the Nomadic tribe in Maharashtra. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court considered historical contexts, including the inclusion of the 'Bawa' community in various Government Resolutions of the Bombay Presidency, even after Sindh's separation. The High Court concluded that the Bawa community from Sindh, which migrated to India, continued to be recognized as part of the Nomadic tribe. This conclusion was based on historical records and government resolutions that consistently included 'Bawa' as a synonym of 'Gosavi' or 'Bairagi,' recognized as Nomadic tribes.

2. Legality of the Government Resolution dated 1.4.1987:
The Government Resolution dated 1.4.1987, which excluded the Sindhi community from the Nomadic Tribe list, was challenged. The High Court found that this resolution aimed to overturn the court's decision in Vijay Daulatani's case, which recognized the Bawa community from Sindh as part of the Nomadic tribe. The court held that neither the Executive nor the Legislature could invalidate a judicial decision by issuing an executive order. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the resolution did not present new material or a fresh basis to alter the legal standing established by the earlier judgment.

3. Nature of Evidence Required for Establishing Belonging to a Nomadic Tribe:
The High Court emphasized that individuals must establish mutual affinity among the tribal communities specified in the Schedule before the appropriate authorities. This requirement was remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration based on merits, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of social and ethnical backgrounds.

4. Necessity of Establishing Mutual Affinity Among Tribal Communities Specified in the Schedule:
The High Court noted that establishing mutual affinity among tribal communities is crucial for validating claims of belonging to a Nomadic Tribe. This involves demonstrating social and ethnical connections with the recognized communities in the Schedule, which was a factual determination to be made by the Scrutiny Committee.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's judgment, recognizing the Bawa community from Sindh as entitled to the benefits reserved for Nomadic tribes. The Government Resolution dated 1.4.1987 was deemed beyond the executive power of the State and an invalid attempt to overturn judicial decisions. The necessity for adequate evidence and mutual affinity among tribal communities was reiterated, ensuring that claims are substantiated based on historical and social contexts. The appeal by the State of Maharashtra was dismissed, upholding the High Court's comprehensive analysis and conclusions.