1. The main point involved in this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is.

Whether the Governor ought to have framed the Chhattisgarh Tribes Advisory Council Rules, 2006 (the Rules) under sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 4(4(3)) of the fifth Schedule of the Constitution in his discretion or the Rules framed by the State of Chhattisgarh (the State) and authenticated on his behalf are sufficient compliance of law.

THR FACTS

2. The scheduled tribes (ST) are the most backward class in our society and special provisions are required for their protection and their land. Part X of the Constitution is titled. The Scheduled and Tribal Areas. It has two articles namely 244 and 244A.

3. The Fifth Schedule has been inserted in the Constitution under Article 244(1) of the Constitution for protection of the tribal land in the States other than Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram; whereas, the Sixth Schedule has been inserted in the Constitution for their protection of their protection in the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram under Articles 244(2) and 275 (1) of the Constitution.

4. Part C of the Fifth Schedule is titled as Scheduled Areas. It has one paragraph namely 6. Under this paragraph, the President is entitled to declare any area as scheduled area and some areas within the State have also been declared as scheduled areas. A list of these areas has been appended as Appendix-1. The impugned Rules have been framed under the fifth Schedule of the Constitution for protection of this area and the scheduled tribes.

5. In the writ petition, the State and Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste Development Department of the State have filed their reply opposing the writ petition.

6. This writ petition was taken up on 19-11-2012 and on that day, the Court opined that it was a fit case in which the Union of India should also be heard. The Assistant Solicitor General of India (the ASG) was supplied with two copies and was requested to file reply.

7. The ASG has made statement that Union of India supports the case of the State and has filed written submissions supporting the stand taken by it.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

8. We have heard Shri Sourabh Dangi as the friend of the Court for the Petitioner; the Advocate General and Deputy Government Advocate for the State and its official; and the ASG for the Union of India. The following points arise for determination in the case:

(i) Whether the validity of a rule can be challenged in a PIL;

(ii) Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the Rules;

(iii) Whether while framing the Rules, the Governor was to act in his own discretion or the Rules framed by the State Government and authenticated on his behalf are valid;

(iv) Whether rules 12 and 15 the Rules are otherwise ultra vires.

1st POINT: DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF PIL

9. The counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another v. C.K. Rajan and others; AIR 2004 SC 561: (2003) 7 SCC 546 (the Guruvayoor case) and submit that validity of the Rules should not be entertained in a PIL.

The Guruvayoor case

10. The administration of Shree Krishna temple, Guruvayoor was governed by a statute and rules framed therein. There were irregularities in the administration of the temple. A letter pointing out the irregularities was treated as the PIL, and a Commissioner was appointed by the High Court.

11. The Commissioner submitted reports about mismanagement in the administration of temples and certain directions were issued. These directions were subject-matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in the Guruvayoor case.

12. The Supreme Court drew curtain to the litigation but not without first praising the High Court in taking up the petition. It observed:

Before parting with this case, however, we must compliment the High Court about the gigantic task undertaken by it leading to discovery of a number of irregularities in the matter of management of the temple detected in the process. We hope and trus