A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment addresses the constitutional limits on judicial intervention in matters concerning Scheduled Tribes identification under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court examined whether the Bombay High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the Gowari community as synonymous with the Gond Gowari Scheduled Tribe listed under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Court undertook a detailed historical, constitutional, and statutory analysis of amendments made to the Scheduled Tribes Order from 1950 to 2002. It emphasized the exclusive power of Parliament under Article 342(2) to include or exclude tribes from the notified list.

The judgment critically evaluated reliance placed by the High Court on census data, anthropological literature, and historical extinction theories. The Court reaffirmed settled constitutional jurisprudence laid down in B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa and State of Maharashtra v. Milind, holding that courts cannot conduct evidentiary inquiries to alter Scheduled Tribe entries. It categorically held that Gowari and Gond Gowari are distinct communities, rejecting the High Court’s finding that Gond Gowari had become extinct prior to 1911.

The decision restores constitutional discipline in affirmative action jurisprudence and reinforces the doctrine of separation of powers. It also balances equities by protecting admissions and appointments secured during the pendency of litigation while denying future Scheduled Tribe benefits to Gowari claimants.

Keywords:
Scheduled Tribes, Article 342, Gond Gowari, Gowari, Constitutional Interpretation, Affirmative Action, Judicial Review

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation arose from conflicting claims over the Scheduled Tribe status in Maharashtra, specifically whether the Gowari community could be treated as Gond Gowari, a tribe expressly included in Entry 18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The controversy traces its roots to colonial census classifications, post-independence constitutional notifications, and subsequent parliamentary amendments governing tribal recognition.

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, by a common judgment dated 14 August 2018, allowed multiple writ petitions and declared that Gond Gowari had become extinct before 1911 and that Gowari alone survived as the true beneficiary of Scheduled Tribe status. This declaration effectively rewrote the Scheduled Tribes list through judicial interpretation.

The State of Maharashtra and the Union of India challenged this approach, contending that such an exercise violated Article 342(2), which reserves the power of inclusion or exclusion exclusively to Parliament. The appeals raised issues of constitutional structure, federalism, and the limits of judicial fact-finding in socio-anthropological matters.

The background is also marked by repeated legislative interventions, including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Acts of 1956, 1976, and 2002, each reflecting conscious parliamentary scrutiny. The persistence of Gond Gowari in the statutory list despite multiple amendments formed a crucial factual foundation. The Supreme Court was thus required to determine whether historical evidence could override constitutional procedure.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Keshao Vishwanath Sonone claimed Scheduled Tribe status as Gond Gowari and was issued a caste certificate accordingly. Upon scrutiny, the certificate was invalidated by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. Sonone challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court. Parallel writ petitions were filed by associations representing Gowari and Gond Gowari interests, raising competing claims regarding tribal identity.

The High Court consolidated these petitions and undertook an extensive examination of census records from 1891 onwards, colonial ethnographic texts, and administrative correspondence. It concluded that Gond Gowari had disappeared as a distinct tribe before 1911 and that the term survived only as an erroneous description of Gowari. On this reasoning, it directed that Gowari community members be treated as Scheduled Tribes.

The State and Union contended that the High Court disregarded statutory amendments and ignored consistent governmental and parliamentary treatment distinguishing Gowari as a non-Scheduled Tribe. Evidence before the High Court also included Government Resolutions dated 24.04.1985, 13.06.1995, and 15.06.1995, which classified Gowari as a Special Backward Class, not a Scheduled Tribe.

Multiple caste certificates issued to Gond Gowari candidates were also on record, contradicting the extinction theory. Despite this, the High Court invalidated the statutory framework and substituted its own conclusions, leading to the present appeals.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court could declare Gowari as a Scheduled Tribe under Article 342?
ii. Whether courts can take evidence to expand Scheduled Tribe entries?
iii. Whether Gond Gowari had become extinct prior to 1911?
iv. Whether Gowari and Gond Gowari are the same caste?
v. Whether affinity tests under Government Resolution dated 24.04.1985 apply?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that Article 342(2) confers exclusive authority on Parliament to modify Scheduled Tribe lists. Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Milind ([2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65), which held that courts cannot add or subtract communities by interpretation.

It was argued that Gond Gowari has been continuously recognized since 29.10.1956 and that extinction theories were speculative and contradicted by official records. The appellants emphasized that repeated parliamentary amendments retained Gond Gowari, reflecting legislative intent.

The State further relied on anthropological studies and Government Resolutions demonstrating cultural and social distinctions between Gowari and Gond Gowari, including differences in occupation, rituals, and social organization.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that the High Court merely clarified the true meaning of the Scheduled Tribe entry. They argued that Gond Gowari was a historical hybrid group that merged into Gowari.

Reliance was placed on census data post-1911 and on B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa ([1965] SCR 316) to justify evidentiary inquiry. It was submitted that deletion of the word “including” in later amendments indicated independence from the Gond tribe.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court judgment. It held that courts cannot conduct anthropological or historical inquiries to determine tribal inclusion. The Court reaffirmed that Article 342(2) mandates parliamentary supremacy in Scheduled Tribe identification.

The extinction theory was rejected as unsustainable. The Court noted that census methodology changes cannot determine constitutional status. It relied on continued issuance of Gond Gowari certificates and parliamentary silence on deletion as proof of existence.

The High Court’s reliance on Russell and Hiralal was found misplaced, as the same text treated Gond Gowari as distinct. The Court further held that Gond Gowari is a sub-tribe of Gond, attracting affinity tests under the 24.04.1985 Resolution.

Equitable relief was granted by protecting admissions and employment obtained between 14.08.2018 and the date of judgment.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio is that judicial bodies lack competence to alter Scheduled Tribe lists, and any inclusion or exclusion must strictly follow Article 342(2) through parliamentary legislation. Courts cannot declare extinction or equivalence of tribes based on evidence.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court expressed reservations regarding expansive interpretations of group entries and emphasized caution in reading Mana Adim Jamat Mandal as diluting affinity requirements.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Scheduled Tribe entries are final unless amended by Parliament.
ii. Courts cannot conduct factual inquiries to modify entries.
iii. Affinity tests apply to sub-tribes.
iv. Census data alone is insufficient to determine tribal extinction.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment restores constitutional clarity by reinforcing legislative supremacy in affirmative action frameworks. It prevents judicial overreach into sensitive socio-political domains and protects the integrity of Scheduled Tribe reservations. The equitable protection granted reflects judicial pragmatism without compromising constitutional discipline.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. State of Maharashtra v. Milind, [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65
ii. B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, [1965] SCR 316
iii. Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh, [1965] SCR 877

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India
ii. Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
iii. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Acts, 1956, 1976, 2002