Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when assistant teachers in Bihar, belonging to the Lohar caste, claimed Scheduled Tribe status under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, seeking promotion in the reserved quota for Scheduled Tribes. The State of Bihar did not accept their claim, and the High Court dismissed their writ petition. The appellants relied on the Hindi version of the Schedule, which mentioned Lohar, and on earlier decisions of Division Benches of the High Court and the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath v. State of Bihar, where Lohar had been treated as a Scheduled Tribe. The State contended that Lohar is a blacksmith/Other Backward Class, distinct from the tribal communities Lohara/Lohra, and that the Hindi version was merely an incorrect translation; the authoritative English version specified only Lohara/Lohra as Scheduled Tribes. The core legal issues were whether a court has the power to declare a community as a Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution, whether the Hindi version of the Schedule should prevail over the English version, and whether Lohar is synonymous with Lohara/Lohra. The Supreme Court examined Article 342, which empowers the President, in consultation with the Governor, to specify Scheduled Tribes by public notification, and Parliament alone to modify such notification. It noted that the specification is conclusive and cannot be varied by courts. The Court referred to Bhaiyalal v. Hari Kishan Singh, B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, and Dina v. Nerayan Singh, which held that the President's notification is final and that courts cannot include or exclude any caste or tribe. The Court also relied on the title of the Hindi version, which itself stated 'translated version', and on the sociological work of H.S. Hisley, which distinguished Lohar as blacksmiths from Lohara/Lohra as tribal communities. The Court held that the English version of the Schedule is authoritative and that the Hindi version's use of Lohar was a mistranslation. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that Lohar is not a Scheduled Tribe, that the courts have no power to declare it as such, and that the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was correct. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Scheduled Tribes - Specification of Scheduled Tribes - Constitution of India, Article 342 - The President alone, after consultation with the Governor, specifies tribes as Scheduled Tribes by public notification; Parliament alone can modify the list; courts have no power to declare a community as Scheduled Tribe. Held that the presidential notification is conclusive and the court cannot expand the list. B) Interpretation of Statutes - Conflict between English and Hindi versions - Authoritative text - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, Second Schedule Part III Bihar - Hindi version is a translated version and uses Lohar instead of Lohara/Lohra; English version specifies Lohara/Lohra only. Held that English version prevails and Hindi version is mis-translation; Lohar cannot be treated as Scheduled Tribe. C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Court's Power - Constitution of India, Article 342 - Courts can only determine whether a community falls within a specified entry, not create or modify entries; following Bhaiyalal, Basavalingappa and Dina. Held that the court cannot treat Lohar as synonym of Lohara/Lohra. D) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Inclusion of Lohara/Lohra versus Lohar - Second Schedule Part III Item 22 - Lohar is blacksmith/OBC distinct from tribal Lohara/Lohra; Hindi version omission of 'a' is not legal inclusion. Held that Lohar is not Scheduled Tribe.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court can give a declaration of social status as a tribe or declare Lohars as Scheduled Tribes under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 and the Constitution; whether the Hindi version of the Schedule mentioning Lohar should prevail over the English version specifying Lohara/Lohra.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the President alone has the constitutional power under Article 342 to specify Scheduled Tribes and that Parliament alone can modify the list; courts have no power to declare a community as Scheduled Tribe. The Hindi version of the Schedule is only a translated version and the English version, which specifies Lohara/Lohra and not Lohar, is authoritative. Lohar, being blacksmiths/OBCs, is distinct from the tribal Lohara/Lohra. Hence, the appellants' claim for Scheduled Tribe status was rejected and the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was upheld.
Law Points
- Article 342 empowers only President to specify Scheduled Tribes
- Parliament alone can modify list
- Courts cannot declare a community as Scheduled Tribe
- Presidential notification is conclusive
- Hindi version is translated version and English version prevails
- Lohar is distinct from Lohara/Lohra
