By the Court.—The question in this case turns on, ‘whether the persons shifted from the list of notified Scheduled Castes to the notified list of Scheduled Tribes, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No. 10/2003), under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, can be deprived of their constitutional rights under Article 243-D, of proportional representation in Panchayat elections, on the ground, that their numbers for giving them representation for reservation in the seats of Chairpersons of village panchayats is not available with the State Government, from the Census 2001 figures; and whether any other empirical data can be relied upon to fulfil the constitutional mandate.’

2. We have heard Shri L.P. Singh; Shri P.K. Kashyap and Shri Vivek Saran for the petitioners. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Y.S. Bohra and Dr. Y.S. Srivastava for the respondents.

3. ‘Pradeshiya Jan Jati Vikas Manch’ a social service organization through its president Shri Munshi Prasad Gond, and ‘Adiwasi Vikas Samiti’ through its Secretary Shri Shrawan Kumar Gond, have filed these writ petitions in public interest for giving the ten castes and seven sub castes excluded from the Scheduled Castes, and included in the Scheduled Tribe by Act No. 10/2003, for which necessary Government Order was issued on 3.7.2003, the proportional representation due to them under Article 243D of the Constitution of India. They have also prayed for quashing the order dated 3.6.2010 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. on the representation made by them in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 21.4.2010 in Writ Petition No. 20380/2010 to provide reservation in the panchayat elections at 2%, instead 0.06% in respect of the 13 districts as per population shown in Census 2001; for directions to the State Government to rely upon the empirical data collected by the Directorate of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi (if such data is not available in the Census 2001), and also for a writ of mandamus to provide reservation to the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of the Census 2001.

4. Shri Amartya Sen, in his celebrated work ‘The Idea of Justice’ Part IV ‘Public Reasoning and Democracy’: 16. ‘The Practice of Democracy’ p.348, writes :

‘Furthermore, we have to go beyond economic growth to understand the fuller demands of development and of the pursuit of social welfare. Attention must be paid to the extensive evidence that democracy and political and civil rights tend to enhance freedoms of other kinds (such as human security) through giving a voice, at least in many circumstances, to the deprived and the vulnerable. That is an important issue, and closely linked with democracy’s role in public reasoning and in fostering ‘Government by discussion’.

5. The writ petitioners have claimed their constitutional right of representation to enhance their freedoms guaranteed to them by the Constitution of India, by the 73rd Amendment.

6. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that after the bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh by U.P. State Reorganization Act, 1999, the majority of Scheduled Tribes residing in the State of Uttranchal, were separated, reducing the number of their castes in the State of UP to five, and their population in the State of UP, according to Census 2001, at 0.06%. Their population in the State of Uttranchal (now Uttrakhand) increased from 2%, in the undivided State, to 3%.

7. Article 342 of the Constitution of India provides for Scheduled Tribes. The President may in respect of any State or Union territory after consultation with the Governor 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 this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Presiden