Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by members of the Lohar community seeking Scheduled Tribe status as Lohara in the State of Bihar. The dispute arose from a Presidential notification issued under Article 342(1) read with Article 366(25) of the Constitution, which listed Scheduled Tribes for Bihar. In Entry 20, the community 'Lohara' was wrongly translated into Hindi as 'Lohra,' and this error appeared in the State Gazette. Subsequently, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 modified the lists. The error was rectified by a government notification on January 6, 1995. Meanwhile, Lohars, who are blacksmiths and a backward class, repeatedly claimed Scheduled Tribe status, leading to extensive litigation. Some High Court decisions had granted social status certificates, while others refused. Earlier, in Shambhoo Nath v. Union of India, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court directed issuance of certificates based on a concession by the Union of India's counsel, but a subsequent writ petition for mandamus was dismissed. The matter was later examined thoroughly in Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court held that Lohars are a backward class and cannot claim Lohara Scheduled Tribe status, and that all contrary High Court judgments were not good law. Following that decision, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court, which was dismissed, and the LPA was also dismissed. Hence the special leave petition. The petitioners argued that the court could not enquire into whether a community is a Scheduled Tribe, relying on B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura, and Palghat Thandan Samudhava Samrakshana Samiti v. State of Kerala; they contended that Nityanand Sharma was per incuriam. They also sought prospective application of Nityanand Sharma. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It clarified that the English version of the Presidential notification clearly mentioned only 'Lohara' as a Scheduled Tribe, not 'Lohar'; the Hindi translation erroneously included Lohars. It distinguished the cited precedents, noting that none involved a wrong translation of the Presidential notification. The Court held that a Presidential notification under Article 342 is conclusive, and it is for Parliament alone to amend it under Article 342(2); the executive cannot modify it, and courts cannot interpret it to include communities not mentioned. The Court also held that the doctrine of prospective overruling could not be applied because the petitioners were not entitled to the status from the inception, and allowing it would perpetuate an illegality. Therefore, the decision in Nityanand Sharma did not require reconsideration, and the High Court's dismissal was correct. The special leave petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Scheduled Tribes - Presidential Notification - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 342(1), Article 366(25) - The English version of the Presidential notification included only 'Lohara' as a Scheduled Tribe, not 'Lohar'; the Hindi translation erroneously included Lohars. The Court held that a Presidential notification under Article 342 is conclusive and courts cannot interpret it to include communities not mentioned. Only Parliament can amend the list under Article 342(2). Held that Lohars, being a backward class, are not entitled to Scheduled Tribe status. (Paras 1-3) B) Precedent - Per Incuriam - Distinguishing Precedents - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 342 - The petitioners relied on Basavalingappa, Srish Kumar Choudhury, and Palghat Thandan to argue that courts cannot enquire into the correctness of inclusion in a Presidential notification and that Nityanand Sharma was per incuriam. The Court distinguished those cases because none involved a wrong translation of the Presidential notification; the English version clearly omitted Lohar. Held that Nityanand Sharma does not require reconsideration and is not per incuriam. (Paras 1-3) C) Prospective Overruling - Social Status Certificates - Non-Applicability - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 342 - The petitioners sought prospective application of Nityanand Sharma to protect certificates already granted. The Court rejected this, holding that from the inception the petitioners were not entitled to Scheduled Tribe status, and allowing prospective application would perpetuate an illegality. Held that the doctrine of prospective overruling does not apply to validate a status that never legally existed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Lohar community is entitled to Scheduled Tribe status as Lohara under the Presidential notification under Article 342; whether the decision in Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar requires reconsideration as per incuriam; whether doctrine of prospective overruling applies to protect already granted certificates
Final Decision
Special Leave Petition dismissed. The Court held that Lohars are not Scheduled Tribes; wrong Hindi translation cannot confer status; Nityanand Sharma does not require reconsideration; prospective overruling not applicable; all reliefs denied.
Law Points
- Presidential notification under Article 342 is conclusive
- Court cannot enlarge its scope
- wrong translation cannot confer Scheduled Tribe status
- Parliament alone can amend list under Article 342(2)
- doctrine of prospective overruling cannot validate illegality from inception
- decision in Nityanand Sharma not per incuriam
