Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': 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