2006 (3) TMI 763 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Affirms 'Mana' Community as Separate Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, Upholding HC's Decision on Government Resolutions.

State of Maharashtra Versus Mana Adim Jamat Mandal

The SC dismissed the appeals, affirming that the 'Mana' community in Maharashtra is a separate Scheduled Tribe, not a sub-tribe of 'Gond.' The Court held ... Challenged the resolutions passed by Government of Maharashtra - Whether the 'Mana' community in the State of Maharashtra is a Sub-Tribe of 'Gond' and is a Scheduled Tribe or not? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, Entry 18 of the Schedule clearly signifies that each of the Tribe mentioned therein deemed to be a separate Tribe by itself and not a sub-Tribe of 'Gond'. 'Gond' is a Scheduled Tribe, it is not disputed. As already noticed that 'Gond' including Arakh or Arrakh etc. found in Entry 12 of Amendment Act 63 of 1956 has been done away with by the Amendment Act of 1976. In Entry 18 of Second Schedule of Amendment Act of 1976 the word 'including' was deliberately omitted, which signifies that each one of the Tribe specifying in Entry 18 is deemed to be a separate Tribe by itself. Therefore, 'Mana' is not a sub-Tribe of 'Gond' but a separate Tribe by itself and is a Scheduled Tribe. In the view that we have taken, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which would warrant interference by this Court. This appeal being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs. For the reasons stated in Civil Appeal, this appeal is also dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the 'Mana' community in the State of Maharashtra is a Sub-Tribe of 'Gond' and is a Scheduled Tribe or not.2. Whether the two Judge Bench decisions in Dina v. Narayan Singh (Dina I) and Dadaji alias Dina v. Sukhdeobabu & Ors. (Dina II) are over-ruled by the Constitution Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Scheduled Tribe Status of 'Mana' CommunityThe primary issue addressed was whether the 'Mana' community in Maharashtra qualifies as a sub-tribe of 'Gond' and thus as a Scheduled Tribe. The judgment referenced Article 342 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President to specify tribes or tribal communities as Scheduled Tribes through public notification. The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and its amendments were examined, with particular emphasis on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. Entry 18 of Part IX of the Schedule to the Order, as amended, lists 'Mana' as a separate tribe, not as a sub-tribe of 'Gond.' The Court concluded that 'Mana' is a distinct tribe and thus qualifies as a Scheduled Tribe independently.Issue 2: Overruling of Dina I and Dina II by Milind KatwareThe second issue was whether the decisions in Dina I and Dina II were overruled by the Constitution Bench in Milind Katware. The Court reiterated the settled principle that only Parliament has the authority to amend Presidential Orders under Articles 341 and 342. The Constitution Bench in Milind Katware explicitly stated that no inquiry or evidence is permissible to declare a tribe or sub-tribe's status if not expressly mentioned in the Presidential Orders. The judgment in Dina I, which concluded that 'Mana' is a sub-tribe of 'Gond' based on evidence, was expressly overruled by Milind Katware. Consequently, Dina II, which relied on Dina I and also considered evidence to determine the status of 'Mana,' was implicitly overruled by Milind Katware.The Court noted that the Constitution Bench's ruling in Milind Katware established that:1. No inquiry or evidence is permissible to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name if not specifically mentioned in the Presidential Orders.2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is, without assuming synonymous relationships not explicitly stated.3. Only Parliament can amend the list of Scheduled Tribes.4. State Governments, courts, tribunals, or any other authority cannot modify or alter the list specified in the Presidential Orders.The Court affirmed that these principles overruled the decisions in Dina I and Dina II. The High Court's quashing of the Maharashtra Government's resolutions, which treated 'Mana' as a Special Backward Class unless it established affinity with 'Gond,' was upheld. The judgment emphasized that 'Mana' is a separate tribe and a Scheduled Tribe per the amended Schedule.ConclusionThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that 'Mana' is a separate Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra and that the decisions in Dina I and Dina II were overruled by the Constitution Bench in Milind Katware. The Court maintained that no authority other than Parliament can alter the Scheduled Tribes list, and 'Mana' is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe independently of 'Gond.'