Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

Non-tribals have the right to settle and vote in Scheduled Areas, rules Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has held that non-tribals have the right to settle and vote in Scheduled Areas. A Constitution Bench comprising of Justices AK Sikri, NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and UU Lalit made the ruling while hearing an appeal against an Orissa High Court order which had dismissed a plea challenging the validity of land acquisition in Scheduled Areas by non-tribals.

The Bench held that the power of the Governor of a state under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution is restricted to directing that a particular law will not apply to the Scheduled Area or it will apply with such modifications as may be specified in the notification issued under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule or while making Regulations in terms of sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule.

The ruling comes after the Orissa government in 2003 passed a law to repeal the 1956 Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956. The law allowed for transfer of tribal land to non-tribals, and was challenged by tribal organisations in the state.

The Constitution Bench observed that the power of the Governor of a state is pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament and the state, and that the legislative power can be exercised by Parliament or the state subject to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The Bench further held that the power of the Governor does not supersede the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India, and that it has to be exercised subject to Part III and other provisions of the Constitution.

The Bench also rejected the argument that the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution is a law made by the Parliament, and that even if it were a law, it does not put any constraints on the exercise of the Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The Bench held that non-tribals have the right to vote in Scheduled Areas, as the 1950 Act is applicable to the Scheduled Area and any person eligible to vote who is ordinarily residing in the Scheduled Area has a right to vote, even if he or she is a non-tribal.

The Bench further held that as regards providing reservation for all the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative constituencies in a Scheduled Area, reservation is required to be made in terms of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. These provisions do not provide that all the constituencies in the Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Appeal Dismissed.

D.D-10.May.2023

Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action   VS Union of India & Ors.      

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/10-May-2023-Adivasis-Vs-UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News