Read full ActO.1 .
This Order may be called the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Legal Commentary on Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 - O.1
Introduction
The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (C.O. 22), issued under Article 342(1), specifies tribes or tribal communities deemed Scheduled Tribes (STs) for constitutional purposes, state-specific with area restrictions. O.1 likely refers to Order 1 or foundational clauses (e.g., short title, scope), defining application to listed tribes resident in specified localities.
What the Section Says
O.1 (short title and commencement): "This Order may be called the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950." Clause 2: Tribes/groups in Schedule Parts I-XXII deemed STs in relation to states/localities specified therein, for members resident therein. References to territories construed as on 1 May 1976. Establishes binding list; modifiable only by Parliament under Article 342(2).
Essential Ingredients
- Presidential Specification: President notifies tribes/groups post-Governor consultation (Art. 342(1)).
- State-Specific: Applies "in relation to" states/UTs; residence in specified areas mandatory.
- Exclusivity: No judicial/state addition/exclusion; Parliament alone amends.
- Residence Test: Permanent abode at notification date; migrants from origin state retain origin benefits only.
- No Synonyms/Affinity Expansion: Entries literal; no evidence inquiry for inclusion.
Scope of Section
Defines operational framework for ST status: exhaustive list, area-bound, non-varied except by Parliament. Extends to reservations (Arts. 330/332/335/46), protections (e.g., land transfer restrictions), certificates. Courts enforce strictly; no equity-based expansion. Amendments (e.g., 1956, 1976) remove/reimpose restrictions, retrospective if clarificatory.
Punishment for Section
No direct punishment; violations (e.g., false claims) attract SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 (imprisonment/fines); land laws impose restoration/penalties. Misrepresentation leads to job termination, no relief (e.g., [K. Ravi Sankar VS Inspector General of Police]).
Legal Comments
- Presidential Authority - Order issued 6.9.1950 under Art. 342(1); specifies tribes state-wise, area-restricted - [Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde VS State of Maharashtra through Secretary & others], [Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others], [PRINCIPAL, GUNTUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, GUNTUR VS Y. PANDURANGA RAO].
- Exclusivity of List - Entries final; courts cannot add/subtract tribes/groups - [PRINCIPAL, GUNTUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, GUNTUR VS Y. PANDURANGA RAO], [Phudnath Kisan Nagesia VS State Of Bihar], [Nityanandsharma VS State Of Bihar].
- No Judicial Inquiry - Impermissible to probe if unlisted tribe fits listed entry; no evidence admissible - [Phudnath Kisan Nagesia VS State Of Bihar], [Nityanandsharma VS State Of Bihar], [Gajanan S/o Pandurang Shende VS Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod, Distt. Chandrapur].
- State-Specific Benefits - ST status "in relation to" state; migrants claim origin state benefits only - [K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS], [Action Committee On Issue Of Caste Certificate To Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes In The State Of Maharashtra VS Union Of India], [PANKAJ KUMAR VS STATE OF JHARKHAND].
- Area Restrictions - Common; e.g., Thakar in specific Bombay districts pre-1976, statewide post-amendment - [Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde VS State of Maharashtra through Secretary & others], [Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others].
- Parliamentary Amendments - Exclusive power under Art. 342(2); e.g., 1976 Act removes restrictions - [Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others], [Manisha Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra].
- Literal Interpretation - Entries as stand; no synonyms (e.g., Lohar ≠ Lohara) - [Nityanand Sharma VS State Of Bihar], [Nityanandsharma VS State Of Bihar].
- Residence Requirement - Permanent at notification; post-1950 births trace parental origin - [CHANDER BHAVE VS STATE OF H. P. ], [Kishore Kumar Baishya VS State of Assam].
- Non-Tribal Exclusion - E.g., Uran not listed; no ST land protections - [Gourahari Behera VS Chand Ram].
- Sub-Tribe Inquiry Limited - Permissible only if expressly grouped; affinity corroborative, not decisive - [Milind Son of Shardrao Katware alongwith intervenors VS State of Maharashtra alongwith intervenors], [Narendra s/o Balaji Ghodmare VS Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli].
- Retrospective Amendments - Clarificatory inclusions (e.g., Medara after Meda) relate back to 1950 - [Parushuram VS Deputy Commissioner And Chairman, District Caste Verification Committee, Dharwad].
- Post-Transfer Status - ST recognition at transfer date governs land laws; subsequent irrelevant - [Manbodh Mahto VS State Of Bihar], [MULCHAND VS RAMBHAU].
- No State Override - GRs cannot reclassify Parliamentary lists (e.g., Thakar ST despite OBC GR) - [Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others].
- Mana as Separate - Entry 18 independent post-1976; not Gond sub-tribe - [Narendra s/o Balaji Ghodmare VS Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli], [Gajanan S/o Pandurang Shende VS Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod, Distt. Chandrapur].
- Mogia District-Specific - Not ST in Guna; listed elsewhere - [FIRM DHARAMCHAND RAMESH CHAND VS BABULAL CHUNNILAL MOGHIYA], [Bulbul VS State of M. P. ].
- Lohara Inclusion - First 1950; pre-1950 transfers valid if not aboriginal - [Manbodh Mahto VS State Of Bihar].
- Thakar Validity - Pre-constitutional docs + 1976 amendment confirm; affinity secondary - [Manisha Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra], [Abhimanyu Dattu Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra].
- Halba Koshti - Sub-division of Halba/Halbi; govt circulars invalid - [Milind Son of Shardrao Katware alongwith intervenors VS State of Maharashtra alongwith intervenors].
- Migration Bar - No cross-state ST benefits despite same name - [K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS], [PANKAJ KUMAR VS STATE OF JHARKHAND].
O.2 .
The tribes or tribal communities, or parts of or groups within, tribes or tribal communities, specified in Parts I to XVI of the Schedule to this Order shall, in relation to the States to which those Parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards member thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them respectively in those Parts of that Schedule.
Legal Commentary on Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 - O.2
Introduction
The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (CSTO), issued by the President under Article 342(1), specifies tribes or tribal communities deemed Scheduled Tribes (STs) for constitutional purposes. Paragraph/O.2 (often referenced as Clause 2) states: "The tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or groups within tribes or tribal communities, specified in Parts I to XXII of the Schedule to this Order shall, in relation to the States to which those Parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them respectively in those Parts of that Schedule." It limits ST status to specified tribes in specified states/localities, enabling benefits under Articles 330, 332, 335, etc. Amendments via parliamentary acts (e.g., 1956, 1976) modify the Schedule, but courts cannot alter entries.
What does O.2 Say
O.2 deems specified tribes/groups as STs in relation to specific states and only for members resident in specified localities (area restrictions, later modified). It ties ST status to the Presidential Schedule, modifiable solely by Parliament under Article 342(2). Residence in specified areas is key pre-amendments; post-1976, many restrictions removed for equity.
Essential Ingredients
Scope of O.2
O.2 confines ST recognition to Presidential Schedule, preventing state/court amendments. Scope includes education/employment reservations but excludes migrants claiming benefits in non-notifying states ["K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS"]. Amendments clarify synonyms/sub-groups retrospectively if clarificatory ["Parushuram VS Deputy Commissioner And Chairman, District Caste Verification Committee, Dharwad"]. Area restrictions protect genuine tribals; removal (1976) addressed anomalies but allowed reimposition ["Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde VS State of Maharashtra through Secretary & others"].
Punishment for Section
CSTO O.2 is declarative, not punitive. Violations (e.g., false claims) attract penalties under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, or service rules. No direct punishment in CSTO; enforcement via scrutiny committees/courts ["Murali VS District Collector, Salem"].
Legal Comments
- Presidential Authority - President specifies STs under Art.342(1) after Governor consultation; CSTO 1950 issued 6.9.1950, amended by Acts (1956, 1976) ["Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde VS State of Maharashtra through Secretary & others"] - [Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde VS State of Maharashtra through Secretary & others].
- Exclusive Parliamentary Power - Only Parliament amends via law (Art.342(2)); courts/states cannot inquire/add/exclude tribes ["Phudnath Kisan Nagesia VS State Of Bihar"] - [Phudnath Kisan Nagesia VS State Of Bihar].
- Strict Interpretation - Entries read as stand; no evidence to declare unlisted tribe synonymous/included ["Nityanand Sharma VS State Of Bihar"] - [Nityanand Sharma VS State Of Bihar].
- Area Restrictions - O.2 limits to specified localities; 1976 Act removed many for equity ["Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others"] - [Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others].
- State-Specific Status - ST in one state (e.g., Konda Kapu in AP) not claimable elsewhere (e.g., Orissa) ["K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS"] - [K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS].
- No Judicial Inquiry - Courts cannot adjudicate unlisted tribe's inclusion; President's list final ["Phudnath Kisan Nagesia VS State Of Bihar"] - [Phudnath Kisan Nagesia VS State Of Bihar].
- Sub-Tribe Inclusion - Sub-tribes (e.g., Halba Koshti of Halba) included if part of listed tribe ["Milind Son of Shardrao Katware alongwith intervenors VS State of Maharashtra alongwith intervenors"] - [Milind Son of Shardrao Katware alongwith intervenors VS State of Maharashtra alongwith intervenors].
- Amendment Retrospectivity - Clarificatory amendments (e.g., synonyms) retrospective to 1950 ["Parushuram VS Deputy Commissioner And Chairman, District Caste Verification Committee, Dharwad"] - [Parushuram VS Deputy Commissioner And Chairman, District Caste Verification Committee, Dharwad].
- Affinity Test Limit - Not sole rejection criterion; corroborates documents, not substitutes ["Narendra s/o Balaji Ghodmare VS Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli"] - [Narendra s/o Balaji Ghodmare VS Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli].
- Pre-Constitutional Docs - High probative value for validity; post-constitutional secondary ["Abhimanyu Dattu Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra"] - [Abhimanyu Dattu Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra].
- Migration Rejection - Scrutiny errs rejecting based on origin outside specified area post-1976 ["Manisha Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra"] - [Manisha Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra].
- Thakar Recognition - Entry 44 (Maharashtra) post-1976 includes Thakar statewide, overriding GRs ["Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others"] - [Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others].
- Lohar Exclusion - Occupational (Lohar) ≠ tribal (Lohra/Lohara); English version prevails ["Nityanand Sharma VS State Of Bihar"] - [Nityanand Sharma VS State Of Bihar].
- Mogia Inclusion - Entry 16 (MP) recognizes Mogia as ST; certificate issuance mandatory ["Kushal Dabi VS General Administration Dept. "] - [Kushal Dabi VS General Administration Dept. ].
- Mana Validity - Entry 18; docs + no sub-classification denial; affinity secondary ["Narendra s/o Balaji Ghodmare VS Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli"] - [Narendra s/o Balaji Ghodmare VS Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli].
- No State Override - GRs classifying ST as OBC unconstitutional post-Parliament list ["Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others"] - [Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others].
- Residence Finality - Benefits state-linked; Public Employment Act doesn't override Art.342 ["K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS"] - [K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS].
- Historical Error Correction - Committees ignore settled law (e.g., Thakar post-1976) ["Manisha Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra"] - [Manisha Thakar VS State Of Maharashtra].
O.3 .
Any reference in this Order to State or to a district or other territorial division thereof shall be construed as a reference to the State, district or other territorial division as constituted on the 1 st day of May, 1976].
THE SCHEDULE
1[PART III-BIHAR
1. Asur,2[Agaria]
2. Baiga
3. Bhanjara
4. Bathudi
5. Bedia
6. Bhumij (in North Chotanagpur and South Chotanagpur divisions and Santhal parganas districts)
7. Binjhia
8. Birhor
9. Birjia
Legal Commentary on Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 - O.3
Introduction
The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (C.O. 22), issued by the President under Article 342(1), specifies tribes or tribal communities deemed Scheduled Tribes for constitutional purposes. Paragraph 3 (O.3) provides: "Any reference in this Order to a State or to a district or other territorial division thereof shall be construed as a reference to the State, district or other territorial division as constituted on the 1st day of May, 1976." This fixes territorial references to boundaries as of that date, ensuring stability in ST notifications amid state reorganizations.
What Section O.3 Says
O.3 standardizes interpretation of territorial divisions in the Order's Schedule, pegging them to configurations on May 1, 1976, post-major reorganizations (e.g., States Reorganisation Act, 1956; Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966).
Essential Ingredients
- Fixed Reference Date: May 1, 1976, for all territorial mentions.
- Applies to Schedule: Ensures ST status ties to 1976 boundaries, preventing dilution via boundary changes.
- Constitutional Finality: Supports Article 342; only Parliament amends via law (Article 342(2)).
Scope of Section
O.3 limits judicial/ executive reinterpretation of areas, preserving original intent. It applies prospectively to post-1976 claims but validates pre-1976 status per then-boundaries. Courts cannot expand via evidence; binds ST benefits (reservations, certificates) to 1976 map. Does not alter tribal lists but stabilizes geography.
Punishment for Section
No direct punishment; violations (e.g., false claims under invalid area) attract general penalties under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, or service rules. Indirectly enforces via certificate invalidation, service termination.
Legal Comments
- Territorial Finality - O.3 fixes district references to May 1, 1976 boundaries, preventing post-1976 changes from affecting ST status - [Shubham, s/o. Mahadeo Gudade VS Vice President & Member-Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee]
- Residence Requirement - Benefits limited to state of residence/seeking employment; Konda Kapu ST in AP not in Orissa - [K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS]
- Area Restriction Removal - 1976 Act (No.108) removed restrictions for Maharashtra STs like Thakur/Thakar statewide - [Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde VS State of Maharashtra through Secretary & others]
- No Judicial Addition - Courts cannot include unlisted tribes (e.g., Manyam Kapu) or synonyms without explicit entry - [PRINCIPAL, GUNTUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, GUNTUR VS Y. PANDURANGA RAO]
- State-Specific Lists - ST status per state (e.g., Gond in Maharashtra/MP via 1950 Order post-reorg) - [Santosh VS Caste Scrutiny Committee]
- Pre-1976 Transfers - Restoration under Maharashtra Act 1974 uses 1950 Order sans area limits post-1976 amendments - [MULCHAND VS RAMBHAU]
- Migration Limits - ST from origin state entitled only there, not migrated state (e.g., Konda Kapu Orissa to AP) - [K. APPA RAO VS DIRECTOR OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS]
- Sub-Tribe Inquiry - Permissible if sub-tribe part of listed ST (e.g., Halba Koshti under Halba/Halbi) - [Milind Son of Shardrao Katware alongwith intervenors VS State of Maharashtra alongwith intervenors]
- Parliamentary Exclusivity - Only Parliament amends 1950 Order; state G.R.s invalid (Thakar as ST post-1976) - [Pandurang Rangnath Chavan VS State of Maharashtra and others]
- Affinity Test Limit - Corroborative, not sole rejection criterion for listed ST (Mana Entry 18) - [Narendra s/o Balaji Ghodmare VS Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli]
- Documentary Primacy - Pre-constitutional docs prove status if matching listed entry (Mana) - [Gajanan S/o Pandurang Shende VS Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod, Distt. Chandrapur]
- No Evidence Alteration - Cannot modify Presidential Order via evidence (Mana claim upheld) - [Gajanan VS Head Master, Govt. Ashram School]
- Retrospective Amendments - Clarificatory inclusions (e.g., Medara in Meda) backdate to 1950 - [Parushuram VS Deputy Commissioner And Chairman, District Caste Verification Committee, Dharwad]
- Post-Notification Residence - Permanent abode at notification date determines status - [CHANDER BAHVE VS STATE OF H. P. ]
- Hindi-English Conflict - English prevails; Lohar (OBC) not Lohra/Lohara ST - [Nityanand Sharma VS State Of Bihar]
- No Court Inclusion - Cannot declare unlisted tribe (Chatri) as ST despite similarity - [Srushti VS Joint Commissioner & Vice-chairman, Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee]
- State Reorg Impact - Jharkhand ST list post-2000 Bihar split amends 1950 Order - [PANKAJ KUMAR VS STATE OF JHARKHAND]
- Customary Law - ST marriages outside HMA 1955 unless notified (Yerukala) - [B Swapna VS B Gnaneswar]
- Verification Guidelines - Certificates must specify exact Order; defects invalidate - [Jyoti Hyankey VS Union Public Service Commission]
AI Assistant
