Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
S. R. NAYAK, C. J. AND V. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.
AJIT P. K. JOGI - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES - Respondents
W. P. 2080 Of 2001
Decided On : December 15, 2006
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (NCSCST) lacks the jurisdiction to entertain complaints questioning an individual's claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe and to pronounce upon their caste/social status under Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tribal leader and politician, challenged the proceedings and findings of the NCSCST, which had investigated a complaint alleging that he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community and had obtained a false Scheduled Tribe certificate. The petitioner argued that the NCSCST lacked the jurisdiction to inquire into his caste status and that the impugned proceedings violated the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the NCSCST does not have the power to decide the caste or social status of an individual and that its findings in the impugned report were without jurisdiction. The Court also found that the NCSCST had violated the principles of natural justice by failing to disclose the adverse material it had collected to the petitioner before recording its findings.
Issues: 1. Whether the NCSCST has the jurisdiction to entertain complaints questioning an individual's claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe and to pronounce upon their caste/social status under Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the impugned proceedings and findings of the NCSCST violated the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India, which empower the NCSCST to investigate complaints and monitor matters relating to the safeguards provided for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, do not confer upon the Commission the jurisdiction to decide the caste or social status of an individual. 2. The NCSCST's investigation into the petitioner's caste status and its findings in the impugned report were without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice, as the Commission failed to disclose the adverse material it had collected to the petitioner before recording its findings.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned proceedings and findings of the NCSCST, and directed the sixth respondent to pay costs to the petitioner.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition preferred under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the proceedings of the National Commission for scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the first respondent herein registered in file No. 2/fcs 2/2001-SSW-l and the 'findings' contained in the report dated 16-10-2001. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned proceedings by writ of certio- rari and also prayed for a writ of mandamus to declare the findings contained in the report dated 16-10-2001 as void and inoperative. In addition, the petitioner has sought for a direction restraining the respondents from conducting any proceeding or taking any action pursuant to the complaint filed by the sixth respondent herein or the impugned findings of the first respondent- commission.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition may be noted in the first instance and they, as stated by the petitioner himself, in brief, are as follows : the petitioner belongs to a Tribal Community known as 'kawar/kanwar' which is notified as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. The petitioner's forefathers were resident of a tribal Hamlet called Jogi Dongari in village sarbahara. Tahsil Pendra Road, District bilaspur which is predominantly inhabited by Tribals. As far back as in the year 1967 a social status/caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent officer. e. Naib Tahsildar, Pendra Road, bilaspur certifying the petitioner as a member of Kanwar Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, similar certificates have also been issued to the petitioner, from time to time, by competent authorities. The petitioner was twice elected to Rajya Sabha and contested two Parliamentary elections from Raigafh and Shahdol Parliamentary constituencies. He was successfully elected from 'reserved' constituency of Raigarh. The petitioner successfully contested from Marwahi Vidhan sabha Constituency in the year 1991 which is a constituency reserved for Scheduled tribes. In the past, due to political motivation and out of vendetta, some disgruntled persons falsely and frivolously trying to raise question regarding the petitioner's social status, filed a writ petition in the form of public Interest Litigation in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Bench Indore vide misc. Petition No. 1417 of 1988 which came to be decided by a Division Bench of that court on 24-7-1989, dismissing the writ petition. Again, a writ petition being Writ petition No. 1039 of 2001 was filed in the high Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and that writ petition was also dismissed by learned Single Bench of that Court vide order dated 24-7-2001 on merit with exemplary cost of Rupees Ten Thousand. Copies of both judgments are annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-P/1 and Annexure-P/ 2, respectively.
( 3 ) WHEN the matter stood thus, the petitioner received a letter No. 2/scs-2/200- ssw-1 dated 29-8-2001 from the Joint Secretary of the first respondent-Commission, referring to an earlier letter dated 26-7-2001 of the Chairman of the first respondent- commission, proposing to investigate and enquire into the allegations made by the sixth respondent in his complaint made to the first respondent-Commission that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled tribe community but had contested the election to Vidhan Sabha from Tribal Constituency, Marwahi in the year 2001 and that the petitioner obtained a false Scheduled tribe Certificate.
( 4 ) THE petitioner on receipt of the above letter dated 29-8-2001 vide his letter dated 11 -9-2001 addressed to the Chairman of the first respondent-Commission refuted the allegations contained in the complaint of the sixth respondent and brought it to the notice to the first respondent-Commission the two orders of the High Court of Madhya pradesh, referred to above and also drew attention of the Commission to their own regulation,. e. paras 6. 2 (d) and (e) contained
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
