Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ku. Srushti D/o Ganesh Dikondwar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur challenging an order of the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee that rejected her claim for a scheduled tribe certificate. The petitioner claimed that her social status was 'Chatri', which she argued was the same as 'Chattri' listed at serial No.22 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. She relied on a pre-constitutional document from 1934 showing her status as 'Chatri'. The respondents, including the Joint Commissioner & Vice-Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and the National Fire Service College, opposed the petition. The court considered the well-settled principle that entries in the constitutional order must be read literally and cannot be added to or deleted from. The court noted that the constitutional order mentions 'Chattri' but not 'Chatri', and the pre-constitutional document cannot override the constitutional list. The court also referred to its earlier decision in Madhuri Talewar v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Writ Petition No.804/2021 decided on 5th March 2021) where a similar claim was rejected. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the Scrutiny Committee's order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Scheduled Tribes - Interpretation of Entries - Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 - The court held that entries in the constitutional order must be read as they stand and cannot be altered by adding or deleting words. The tribe 'Chatri' is not mentioned in the order, and a pre-constitutional document showing 'Chatri' cannot confer scheduled tribe status. (Paras 4-5)
B) Scheduled Tribes - Caste Scrutiny - Pre-constitutional Documents - Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 - The petitioner claimed her social status as 'Chatri' based on a 1934 document, but the constitutional order lists only 'Chattri'. The court held that the pre-constitutional document cannot override the constitutional list, and the Scrutiny Committee's rejection was valid. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tribe 'Chatri' is the same as 'Chattri' as listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and whether a pre-constitutional document can establish scheduled tribe status.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Entries in constitutional orders must be read literally
- no addition or deletion of words
- pre-constitutional documents cannot override the constitutional list
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 157
Writ Petition No.1225/2020
Sunil B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
Shri S.R. Narnaware for petitioner, Shri N.R. Patil (A.G.P.) for respondent No.1, Ms Sushma for respondent Nos.2 and 3
Ku. Srushti D/o Ganesh Dikondwar
Joint Commissioner & Vice-Chairman, Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur; Director, National Fire Service College, Nagpur; Assistant Professor, Head of Office, National Fire Service College, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee rejecting the petitioner's claim for scheduled tribe certificate.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and direction to issue scheduled tribe certificate.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's claim for scheduled tribe status as 'Chatri' was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that 'Chatri' is not listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Previous Decisions
The Scrutiny Committee passed an order rejecting the petitioner's claim, which is impugned in this petition.
Issues
Whether the tribe 'Chatri' is the same as 'Chattri' as listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Whether a pre-constitutional document can establish scheduled tribe status when the tribe is not listed in the constitutional order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that 'Chatri' is the same as 'Chattri' and relied on a pre-constitutional document of 1934 showing her status as 'Chatri'.
Respondents argued that the constitutional order lists only 'Chattri' and not 'Chatri', and the court cannot add or delete words from the order.
Ratio Decidendi
Entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 must be read literally and cannot be altered by adding or deleting words. A pre-constitutional document cannot confer scheduled tribe status if the tribe is not listed in the constitutional order.
Judgment Excerpts
It is well settled law that entries in the constitutional order must be read as they stand in the order and it is not permissible for the Court to read something into the order which is not manifestly in it and the Court cannot add a single word or letter or comma or delete the same from the constitutional order.
The pre-constitutional document in possession of the petitioner shows her social status as 'Chatri' and not as 'Chattri'. The constitutional order does not make any mention of the caste or tribe 'Chatri'.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for a scheduled tribe certificate claiming 'Chatri' status. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.1225/2020 before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. The petition was heard and finally disposed of on 30.3.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950: Serial No.22
