9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Permissibility of enquiry to declare a tribe or tribal community included in the general name not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 2. Whether 'Halba Koshti' caste is a sub-tribe within the meaning of Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the Scheduled Tribes Order relating to the State of Maharashtra. Summary: Issue 1: Permissibility of Enquiry The Supreme Court held that it is impermissible to hold any enquiry or let in evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Court emphasized that the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution can only be amended by law made by Parliament, and no other authority, including State Governments or courts, can modify or alter these Orders. The Court reaffirmed the ratio of the two Constitution Bench judgments in B. Basavalingappa vs. D. Munichinnappa and Bhaiyalal vs. Harikishan Singh, which held that no enquiry or evidence is permissible to establish that a caste or tribe is included in the Presidential Orders if not expressly mentioned. Issue 2: Halba Koshti as Sub-Tribe The Supreme Court concluded that 'Halba Koshti' is not a sub-tribe within the meaning of Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the Scheduled Tribes Order relating to the State of Maharashtra. The Court found that the authorities, including the Director of Social Welfare and the Additional Tribal Commissioner, conducted a thorough and objective enquiry and correctly determined that the respondent belonged to the 'Koshti' caste and not the 'Halba/Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The Court noted that the High Court erred in relying on previous judgments and circulars that were inconsistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the constitutional provisions. The Court also rejected the application of the doctrine of stare decisis by the High Court, stating that the previous decisions were not consistent with the constitutional provisions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court were set aside. The respondent, who had completed his medical course, was allowed to retain his degree and practice as a doctor, but he was barred from claiming Scheduled Tribe status for any future constitutional purposes. The Court clarified that the admissions and appointments that had become final would remain unaffected by this judgment.
|
