Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Central and State laws in Scheduled Areas: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action vs. Union of India (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2023

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2202 of 2012

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Do laws made by the Central and State legislatures automatically apply to Scheduled Areas, or do they require a specific notification by the Governor? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, which has significant implications for the administration and governance of Scheduled Areas. This case clarifies whether the Governor’s notification is a prerequisite for the application of Central and State laws in Scheduled Areas. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa. The core contention was that only members of Scheduled Tribes have the right to settle in Scheduled Areas. The appellant argued that non-tribal residents were unlawful occupants, thus disentitled to vote in any constituency within the Scheduled Area. Further, they argued that all constituencies in Scheduled Areas should be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, and only candidates from Scheduled Tribes should be allowed to contest elections in these areas. The appellant also contended that Central and State laws do not apply to Scheduled Areas unless specifically notified by the Governor.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Orissa, appealed to the Supreme Court of India after the grant of leave on February 14, 2012.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, specifically Clause 5, which deals with the laws applicable to Scheduled Areas. Clause 5 states:

“5. Law applicable to Scheduled Areas.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State or shall apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and any direction given under this sub-paragraph may be given so as to have retrospective effect.”

The appellant argued that this clause means that no Central or State law applies to a Scheduled Area unless the Governor issues a specific notification. The Supreme Court examined this interpretation in light of the constitutional provisions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant contended that Article 244(1) of the Constitution states that the provisions of the Fifth Schedule apply to the administration and control of Scheduled Areas, making the Fifth Schedule a law in itself.
• They argued that no law made by the Central or State legislature can apply to a Scheduled Area without a specific notification by the Governor.
• The appellant submitted that the Governor must first decide which Acts of Parliament or the State Legislature should apply to Scheduled Areas, and then issue a notification to that effect.
• They relied on the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution, stating that the law made in accordance with Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule prevails in Scheduled Areas.
• The appellant cited the Federal Court decisions in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar and Chatturam v. Commissioner of Income Tax to support their interpretation of sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule.
• The appellant also argued that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not applicable to the Scheduled Area as it was not notified by the Governor.

Respondents’ Submissions:

The respondents argued that the Central and State laws apply to the Scheduled Areas unless specifically exempted by the Governor.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether Central and State Acts can apply to a Scheduled Area without a specific notification by the Governor.
2. Whether a non-Tribal has the right to vote in a Scheduled Area.
3. Whether all the Lok Sabha and State Legislative constituencies in a Scheduled Area should be reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Cases:

• Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar, (1947) Federal Court Reports 130, Federal Court.
• Chatturam v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1947 FC 32, Federal Court.
• Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 401, Supreme Court of India.
• Jatindra v. Province of Bihar, 1949 SCC OnLine FC 23, Federal Court.
• Ram Kirpal Bhagat v. State of Bihar, (1969) 3 SCC 471, Supreme Court of India.
• Riel v. R., (1885) LR 10 AC 675 (PC), Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to reside and settle in any part of India.
• Article 244(1) of the Constitution of India: States that the Fifth Schedule applies to the administration and control of Scheduled Areas.
• Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India: Deal with the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of the States.
• Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India: Deals with the law applicable to Scheduled Areas.
• Section 92 of the Government of India Act, 1935: Pertains to the administration of excluded and partially excluded areas.
• Representation of the People Act, 1950: Governs the conduct of elections.
• Delimitation Act, 2002: Governs the delimitation of constituencies.
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Governs land acquisition.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Federal Court decisions in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar [ (1947) Federal Court Reports 130 ] and Chatturam v. Commissioner of Income Tax [AIR 1947 FC 32] were distinguished because they pertained to Section 92 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which is different from the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
• The Constitution Bench decision in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [(2021) 11 SCC 401] was followed to clarify that the Governor’s power under Clause 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule is limited to modifying or excluding the application of existing laws, and does not extend to creating new laws.
• The Court cited Jatindra v. Province of Bihar [1949 SCC OnLine FC 23] to support the view that the Governor’s power under Para 5 is a legislative power.
• The Court cited Ram Kirpal Bhagat v. State of Bihar [(1969) 3 SCC 471] to explain the extent of the Governor’s legislative power.
• The Court cited Riel v. R. [(1885) LR 10 AC 675 (PC)] to explain the extent of legislative power.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to uphold the constitutional framework and ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected, including those residing in Scheduled Areas. The Court emphasized that the Fifth Schedule is not meant to override fundamental rights but to further the constitutional aims and objectives. The court was also influenced by the binding precedent of the Constitution Bench in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal interpretations and constitutional provisions (70%) than by the specific factual aspects of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Central and State laws are applicable to Scheduled Areas unless specifically exempted by the Governor through a notification.
• Non-tribals have the right to settle down in Scheduled Areas.
• All eligible voters, including non-Tribals, have the right to vote in Scheduled Areas.
• Reservation of constituencies in Scheduled Areas is governed by Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, and not all constituencies need to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
• The Governor’s power under the Fifth Schedule does not supersede fundamental rights.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Central and State laws apply to Scheduled Areas unless specifically exempted by the Governor. This clarifies the legal position, overturning the appellant’s interpretation that a specific notification is required for the application of laws. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the Fifth Schedule is not meant to create an exception to the general laws of the land, but to provide a mechanism for the Governor to modify or exclude laws to protect the interests of the Scheduled Tribes. This ruling reinforces the applicability of fundamental rights in Scheduled Areas, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their tribal affiliation, are treated equally under the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court clarified that Central and State laws apply to Scheduled Areas unless specifically exempted by the Governor. The Court also held that non-tribals have the right to settle and vote in Scheduled Areas, and that reservation of constituencies is governed by Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. This judgment reinforces the constitutional framework and ensures that fundamental rights are protected in Scheduled Areas.