Judges : T.C.RAGHAVAN,P.UNNIKRISHNA KURUP
EACHARAN ITTIATHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 3373 of 1966
Decided On : 12/22/1969
Advocates Appeared :
T. M. Krishnan Nambiar; V. Sivaraman Nair; V. M. Nayanar; K. C. Sankaran; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents
Scheduled Tribes - Kerala Hillmen Rules, 1964 - S.76(a) of the Kerala Forest Act - Art.244, 342, 338, 339 of the Constitution - Entry 19, 20 of List II of Schedule VII - Art.248 of the Constitution - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the constitutional provisions related to the administration and control of Scheduled Tribes, the power of the President and Parliament to deal with matters concerning Scheduled Tribes, and the interpretation of legislative powers of the State Legislature under Entry 19 and 20 of List II of Schedule VII. The court also examines the liberal interpretation of Entries in the Lists in Schedule VII and the residuary powers of legislation under Art.248 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasizes the special provisions for legislation regarding the welfare, protection, and advancement of Scheduled Tribes and concludes that S.76(a) of the Kerala Forest Act and the Kerala Hillmen Rules, 1964 are beyond the constitutional competence of the State Legislature.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, challenges the constitutional validity of the Kerala Hillmen Rules, 1964 framed under S.76(a) of the Kerala Forest Act, contending that the rules are beyond the competence of the State Legislature as they deal with a subject not included in the State List or Concurrent List of Schedule VII of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and that legislation regarding the welfare of Scheduled Tribes is specially provided for in the Constitution, vesting power in the President and Parliament. The court holds that S.76(a) of the Kerala Forest Act and the Kerala Hillmen Rules, 1964 are unconstitutional and beyond the competence of the State Legislature.
Issues: The issues involve the constitutional competence of the State Legislature to legislate on the welfare, protection, and advancement of Scheduled Tribes under S.76(a) of the Kerala Forest Act and the Kerala Hillmen Rules, 1964.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes that the special provisions for legislation regarding the welfare, protection, and advancement of Scheduled Tribes are provided in the Constitution, and the State Legislature does not have the power to legislate on such matters. It also emphasizes the liberal interpretation of Entries in the Lists in Schedule VII and the residuary powers of legislation under Art.248 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, S.76(a) of the Kerala Forest Act is struck down as unconstitutional, and the Kerala Hillmen Rules, 1964 are declared illegal and void. The petitioner is awarded costs from the State.
1. The petitioner, a Mala Arayan, a member of a Scheduled Tribe (a hill tribe), prays for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order striking down the Kerala Hillmen Rules, 1964 framed for the protection, advancement, treatment and management of hill tribes under S.76 (a) of the Kerala Forest Act and also directing the Government and the officers of the Forest Department to forbear from acting on these rules. The main contention of the petitioner, who is a member of a registered society called Vanavarga Maha Sabha, is that the said rules are beyond the competence of the State Legislature and the State Government as the rules deal with a subject which is not included either in the State List or in the Concurrent List of Schedule VII of the Constitution. He also contends that the subject falls within the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
2. Art.244 of the Constitution provides that the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and the Scheduled Tribes in any State other than the State of Assam. Then there are Articles like 338 providing for the appointment of a Special Officer for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and 339 giving power to the President for appointing a Commission to report on the administration of the Scheduled Areas and the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes in the States. Art.342 (1) provides that the President may, with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of, or groups within, tribes or tribal communities which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. Clause (2) of Art.342 gives power to the Parliament to include in, or exclude from, the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community. These provisions of the Constitution make it abundantly clear that legislation regarding the welfare, protection, advancement, etc of Scheduled Tribes is specially provided for and power is vested in the President and in the Parliament to deal with those matters.
3. The affidavit of the petitioner alleges that he is a Mala Arayan, a member of a Scheduled Tribe; and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State does not dispute this. The petitioner further alleges that he is a member of Vanavarga Maha Sabha, a registered society. The President of India, taking power under Art.342(1) of the Constitution, promulgated the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order of 1950, wherein Mala Arayan is included in Part XIV relating to Travancore-Cochin as a Scheduled Tribe throughout the State. In 1956, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act was passed by the parliament and therein also Mala Arayan is listed as a Scheduled Tribe throughout the State of Travancore-Cochin. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner is a Mala Arayan, a member of a Scheduled Tribe. And any law touching the welfare of Mala Arayans has to be passed as contemplated by Art.244 and the other Articles like 338 and 339 of the Constitution. Evidently, the State Legislature has no power to legislate on this subject.
4. The State has power under Entry 19 of list II of Schedule VII to legislate regarding "forests", and S.76 of the Kerala Forest Act of 1961 confers power on the Government to make rules, inter alia, "for the protection, advancement, treatment and management of hill tribes".
5. The impugned rules are framed under this provision in the Kerala Forest, Act. The argument of the Government Pleader is that the hill tribes who are living in settlements in Reserved Forests are part of the forests, so that the State legislature has power to legislate regarding their protection, ad
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.