The Governor does not act in discretion for framing rules under the Fifth Schedule; such rules are valid and within constitutional compliance.

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".

2.THE FACTS
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 Art.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 Art.244(2) and Art.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.

8. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
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 R.12 and R.15 the Rules are otherwise ultra vires.

9. 1st POINT : DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF PIL
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 litig