Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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