Holding

No enquiry is permissible and Halba‑Koshti is not a sub‑tribe of Halba/Halbi; the Scheduled Tribes Order can be amended only by Parliament.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra challenged the admission of Milind, who had obtained a caste certificate claiming he belonged to the Halba Scheduled Tribe, on the ground that he was actually a member of the Koshti caste. The High Court had held that a sub‑tribe enquiry was permissible and that Halba‑Koshti could be treated as a sub‑division of Halba/Halbi under Entry 19 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Supreme Court examined whether any court or tribunal may hold an enquiry or admit evidence to determine inclusion of a tribe or sub‑tribe not expressly listed in the Presidential Order, and whether Halba‑Koshti qualifies as such a sub‑tribe. Relying on Articles 341 and 342, the Court held that only Parliament may amend the Schedule and that the Order must be read as it stands; no enquiry or evidence is admissible to expand it. Consequently, the Court affirmed that Halba‑Koshti is not a sub‑tribe of Halba/Halbi and set aside the High Court’s judgment, allowing the appeal. The respondent’s medical degree remains valid but he cannot claim any Scheduled Tribe benefits thereafter.

Issues considered

Whether it is permissible to hold an enquiry and admit evidence to decide if a tribe, sub‑tribe, part or group not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is included in the listed Scheduled Tribe.
Whether the Halba‑Koshti caste constitutes a sub‑tribe of the Halba/Halbi tribe under Entry 19 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950.

Legislation cited

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976

Subjects

Scheduled TribesArticle 341Article 342ReservationCaste certificateHalbaKoshtiJudicial reviewArticle 227Stare decisisParliamentary amendmentConstitutional law

Judgment

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A
v.
MILIND AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 28, 2000

[G.B. PATTANAIK, S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.P. MOHAPATRA, B
DORAi SWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]

Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950: Part IX Entry 19.

Entries-Genera/ name mentioned in-Holding of enquiry-To determine C
whether any tribe or community is include in-Held: ls not permissible even
though it is not specifically mentioned therein.

Entries-Interpretation of-Held: Must be read as it is-A tribe, sub-
tribe part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is not synonymous to D
the one mentioned therein unless specifically mentioned so.

Scheduled Tribe- "Halba/Halbi "--Scope and ambit of-Held: Halba-
Koshti cannot be treated to be a sub-tribe of Ha/ba/Halbi-Doctrine of stare
decisis wrongly applied by High Court to take a different view-Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act. 1976. E
"Halba!Ha/bi-Caste Certificate-Admission to MBBS course in
reserved category-On the basis of-Candidate belonging to "Koshti" caste
was granted certificate by the concerned authority as belonging to "Halbal
Ha/bi" Scheduled Tribe caste-Candidate secured admission on the basis of
this certificate-Appellate authority rejected the said certificate-Dispute F
regarding correctness of certificate came up before Supreme Court after 15
years-Held; Certificate is illegal-But candidate allowed to practise as a
doctor-However, the candidate is not entitled to take any advantage of the
Scheduled Tribes Order any further-Moreover, any appointments that have
become final will be unaffected-Constitution of India, 1950. Arts. 136 and G
142.

"Halba/Ha/bi"-- "Koshti"-Whether a sub-tribe of Halba· -Enquiry to
determine-Permissibility of-Held: it is not permissible to let in evidence or
hold enquiry to decide or declare any tribe or part or group of tribe or tribal
community as included in the general name mentioned in the Scheduled H
65
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

. A Tribes Order- "Koshti" is not a part or "Ha/ba/Ha/bi" and cannot be
declared so by any court or tribunal.

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 341, 342 and 366 (24) & (25).

Objects of-Held: (i) To provide additional protection to the members
B of 'SC and ST having regard to their social and educational backwardness
and (ii) to keep away disputes touching whether a caste/tribe is or is not
SC/ST for the purpose of the Constitution.

"Castes" and "tribes "-Meaning of-Held: These words have been
used as defined in Arts. 366 (24) &(25) and not in the ordinary sense.
c Scheduled Tribes-Notification specifj;ing Power to amend-Held: Can
be amended only by Parliament by law and not by State Governments, any
authority, courts and tribunals-State Government Circular amending the ST
Order not binding on the Government.

Scheduled Tribes-Notification specifj;ing-Power of President-Scope
D and ambit of-Held: Is limited to notifj;ing parts or groups within the caste
or tribe and to further specifj; castes or tribes thereof in relation to parts of
the State and not to the entire State.

Scheduled Tribe- "Halba "-Belonging t<>-Proof of-Mode-School
E leaving Certificate-State Government issued a Circular declaring School
leaving Certificate as valid proof in respect of "Ha/bas" -legality of-
Held: is unconstitutional and contrary to Central Government's instructions-
Hence, the High Court erred in treating the School leaving Certificate as
conclusive proof and in declaring the Circular as binding on the State
Government.
F Article 227-lnferior Tribunal's Order-Judicial Review of-Power of
High Court-Nature of-Held: is supervisory and not appellate-Where the
Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority, after holding elaborate
enquiry and examining all relevant materials, recorded the finding that a
person belonged to "Koshti" caste and not to "Halba/Halbi" , a Scheduled
G Tribe under Entry 19 Scheduled Tribes Order, the High Court exceeded its
supervisory jurisdiction by examining the materials afresh and arriving at a
different conclusion.

Precedents- "Stare decisis "-Rule of-Scope-Held: Is not inflexible
so as to preclude a departure therefrom in order to give quietus to an
H incorrect precedent especially when it runs counter to the Constitution.
STATEv. MILIND 67
Subordinate legislation--Circulars/Orders-State Government issued A
Circulars contrary to Constitutional provisions-Binding effect of-Held:
Not binding even on the State Government.

Words and Phrases:

"Castes" and "tribes"-Meaning of-In the context of Arts. 366(24) & B
(25) of the Constitution of India. 1950.

Doctrines:

Doctrine of Stare decisis Applicability of
c
On the basis of School Leaving Certificate and other records of his
close relatives the respondent obtained a caste certificate from the Executive
Magistrate as belonging to "Halba", a Scheduled Tribe. On the strength of
this certificate the respondent obtained admission to the MBBS degree course
for the Year 1985-86 in the reserved category meant for Scheduled Tribes.
The Certificate was sent for verification of the Scrutiny Committee constituted D
under the Directorate of Social Welfare. The said Committee, after holding
enquiry, concluded that the respondent did not b~long to the "Halba" tribe.
The Appellate Authority, after holding further enquiry, concluded that the
respondent belonged to "Koshti" caste and not to "Halba/Halbi" Scheduled
Tribe. E
The High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition and quashed the
impugned orders inter alia holding that it was permissible to enquire whether
any sub-division of a tribe was a part and parcel of the tribe mentioned therein
and that "Halba-Koshti" was a sub-division of the main tribe"Halba/Halbi"
as per Entry 19 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 applicable F
to the State of Maharashtra. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that it was not permissible
to hold an enquiry whether a particular group is a part of the Scheduled Tribe
as specified in the Scheduled Tribes Order; that the decision in Bhaiya Ram G
Munda's case did not lay down the correct principle of law as to the scope of
enquiry and the power to amend the Schedules Castes/Scheduled Tribes Order;
that the High Court misinterpreted the report of the Joint Committee of the
Parliament placed before it when representations for inclusion of "Ha Iba
Koshti" in the Scheduled Tribes Orders were rejected; that the High Court
also committed an error in invoking and applying the principle of stare decisis H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A to the facts of the present case; that the High Court also erred in setting
aside the orders of the Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority which
were made on proper and full consideration of evidence and authorities; that
the High Court gave undue importance to the resolutions/circulars issued by
the State Government which were contrary to law and that the High Court
B erred in treating the issue involved in the present case as already closed when
the same question was kept open by this Court in Abhay's case.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the old records
relating to the period when there was no controversy, clearly supported the
case of the respondent and the School Leaving Certificate issued to the
C respondent was valid and that it was open to show that a particular caste was
part of the Scheduled Tribes coming within the meaning and scope of the
tribal community even though it was not described as such in the Presidential
Order.

The following questions arose before this Court:-
D (1) Whether at all, it was permissible to hold enquiry and let in evidence
to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group
within any tribe or tribal community was included in the general name even
though it was not specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950?
E
(2) Whether "Halba Koshti" caste was a sub-tribe within the meaning
of Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the said Scheduled Tribes Order relating to the
State of Maharashtra, even though it was not specifically mentiOned as such?

Allowing the appeal, the Court
F HELD: 1. The laudable object of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution
of India is to provide additional protection to the members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes having regard to social and educational
backwardness from which they have been suffering since a considerable
length of time. The words 'caste' or 'tribes' in the expression 'Scheduled
G Castes' and 'Scheduled Tribes, are not used in the ordinary sense of the terms
but are used in the sense of the definitions contained in Articles 366(24) and
366(25). Therefore, a caste is a Scheduled Caste or a tribe is a Scheduled
Tribe only if they are included in the President's Order issued under Articles
341 and 342 for the purpose of the Constitution. (78-H; 79-A(

H 2.1. Under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) a notification issued under clause
STATE v. MILIND 69
(1) of the said Articles cannot be varied by any subsequent notification except A
by law made by Parliament. In other words, Parliament alone is competent by
law to include in or exclude a caste/tribe from the list of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes specified in the notifications issued under Clause (1) of the
said Articles. In including castes and tribes in the Presidential Order, the
President is authorized to limit the notification to parts or groups within the B
caste or tribe depending on the educational and social backwardness. It is
permissible that only parts or groups within them could be specified and
further to specify castes or tribes thereof in relation to parts of the State and
not to t.he entire State on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so having
regard to social and educational backwardness. The object of Clause (1) of
Articles 341and342 is to keep away disputes touching whether a caste/tribe C
is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or not for the purpose of the
Constitution. [79-D-F)

2.2. Whether a particular caste or a tribe is a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe as the case may be within the meaning of the entries
contained in the Presidential Orders issued under Clause (1) of Articles 341 D
and 342 is to be determined looking to them as they are. Clause (2) of the
said Articles does not permit any one to seek modification of the said orders
by leading evidence that the Caste/tribe (A) alone is mentioned in the Order
· but caste/tribe (B) should be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
as the case may be. Therefore, it serves no purpose to look at gazetteers or E
glossaries for establishing that a particular caste tribe is a Scheduled ca\te/
Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of the Constitution, even though it is not
specifically mentioned as such in the presidential Orders, Orders once issued
under Clauses (1) of the said Articles, cannot be varied by subsequent order
or notification even by the President except by law made by Parliament. Hence,
it is not possible to say that State Government or any other authority or courts F
or tribunals are vested with any power to modify or vary the said Order.
Therefore, no enquiry is permissible and no evidence can be let in for
establishing that a particular caste or part or group within tribes or tribe is
included in the Presidential Order if they are not expressly included in the
Orders. Since any exercise or attempt to amend the Presidential Order except G
as provided in Clause (2) of Articles 341 and 342 would be futile, holding any
enquiry or letting in any evidence in that regard is neither permissible nor
useful. [79-G-H; 80-A-Df

3. t. The President issued the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
1950, which has been amended from time to time. Parliament passed in 1976 H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 ·
(Act 108176). In the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 relating to
the State of Maharashtra, Part IX Entry 19 relates to 'Halba/Halbi'. Although
this Schedule is amended by law made by Parliament, Entry 19 is not amended
for adding "Halba-Koshti" in the said Entry. Looking to the other Entries in
B the same Part, it is clear that wherever a particular area was to be excluded,
it is so done by mentioning the same in the concerned Entry relating to a
tribe. Similarly, if a tribe or tribal community had other names and they were
to be included in the Entry, it is done by mentioning them specifically. When
there was agitation and representation to include " Halba Koshti", within the
Scheduled Tribes even long before the Amendment Act, 1976 was passed and
C the very fact that "'Halba-Koshti" was not included within Entry 19 relating
to "Halba/Halbi", negatives the claim of the respondent. Further, if"Halba
Koshti" was a part of group or sub-tribe of 'Halba/Halbi' Tribe there was no
need for representation to include it before the Parliamentary Joint Committee.
[80-E; 81-E-F)
D
4.1. The State have no power to amend the Presidential Orders.
Consequently, a party in power or the Government of the day in a State is
relieved from the pressure or burden of tinkering with the Presidential Order
either to gain popularity or to secure votes. [82-D)

E , Constituent Assembly Debates (Official Report, Vol. 9), referred to.
4.2. Courts cannot, and should not, expand jurisdiction to deal with the
question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste, a group or part of tribe
or sub-tribe is included in any one of the Entries mentioned in the Presidential
Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. Allowing the State Governments
F or courts or other authorities or tribunals to hold enquiry as to whether a
particular caste or tribe should be considered as one included in the Schedule
of the Presidential Order, when it is not so specifically included, may lead to
problems. In order to gain advantage or reservations for the purpose of
Articles 15(4) or 16(4) several persons have been coming forward claiming
G to be covered by Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. This
apart, when no other authority other than the Parliament, that too by law alone,
can amend the Presidential Orders, neither the State Government nor the
courts nor tribunals nor any authority can assume jurisdiction to hold enquiry
and take evidence to declare that a caste or a tribe or part of or a group within
a caste or tribe is included in Presidential Orders in one Entry or the other
H although they are not expressly and specifically included. (82-F; 83-8-C)
STATE v. MILIND 71
4.3. It is not at all permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any evidence· A
to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group
within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even
though it is not specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. [89-C)

4.4. Further the Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not B
even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or
tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes
Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. (97-B]

Basavalinagappa v. D. Munichinnappa, (1965)1SCR316 and Bhaiyalal C
v. Harikishan Singh, (1965) 2 SCR 877, relied on.

Parasram v. Shivchand, (1969) 2 SCR 997 and Srish Kumar Choudhury
v. State ofTripura, (1990] Supp. SCC 220; Pa/ghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya
Samrakshna Samithi v. State of Kerala, (1994] 1 SCC 359 and Nityanand
Sharma v. State of Bihar, [1996) 3 SCC 576, affirmed. D
Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar, (1971) 1 SCR 804; Dina v.
Narayan Singh, 38 ELR 212 and K. Adikanada Patra v. Gandua, AIR (1983)
Ori 89 (FB), overruled.

5.1. The rule ofstate decisis is not inflexible so as to preclude a departure E
therefrom in any case but its application depends on facts and circums_tances
of each case. It is good to proceed from precedent to precedent but it is earlier
the better to give quietus to the incorrect one by annulling it to avoid repetition
or perpetuation of injustice, hardship and anything ex-facie illegal more
particularly when 11 precedent runs counter to the provisions of the F
Constitution. (91-F)

5.2. The High Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and relied on
certain decisions to support its view that "Habla-Koshti" is included in ' Halba'
or 'Balbi' Tribe. The High Court was wrong in this regard. Among the
decisions relied on by the High Court except two decisions, all other decisions G
were rendered subsequent to the two Constitution Bench decisions of this
Court in B. Basavalingappa and Bhaiya Lal cases. The said two decisions
were rendered without having the benefits of the decisions of this Court, that
too concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. The
remaining decisions were contrary to the law laid down by this Court.
[91-D-E, GJ H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Sonabai v. Lakhmibai, (1956) NLJ 725; Madhukar Dekate v. Dean of
the Medical College, Nagpur, Letter Patent Appeal No. 157/1955, decided on
4.8.1957 (MP) (DB); Sunit Nan Umredkar v. Dr. VG Ranade, WP No. 2404 of
1980, decided on 24.9.1980 (Born) (DB); Prabodh Parhate v. State of MP.,
WP No. 1450of1981, decided on 21.1.1982 (MP) (DB); Abhay Parate v. State
B of Maharashtra, (1984) Mah LJ 289; Kalpana Bhishikar v. Director ofSocial
Welfae, WP No. 95of1985, decided on 14.2.1985 (Born) (DB) and State of
Maharashtra v. Abhay, AIR (1958) SC 328, referred to.

Maktul v. A!anbhari, [1959] SCR 1099, relied on.

6.1. Circular No. CBC-14811703/DV dated 31.7.1981 directed the
C Government that until further orders insofar as 'Balbas' are concerned, the
School Leaving Certificate should be accepted as valid for the purpose of the
caste. The High Court dealing with the stand of the State Government on the
issue of 'Halba-Koshti' from time to time, and also referring to circulars/
ressolutions/instructions held in favour of the respondent on the ground that
D the appellant was bound by its own circulars/order. No doubt, it is true, the
stand of the appellant as to the controversy relating to 'Halba-Koshti' has been
varying from time to time but the circulars/resolutions/instructions issued
by the State Government from time to time, some time contrary to the
instructions issued by the Central Government, are of no consequence. They
E could be simply ignored as the State Government had neither the authority
nor competency to amend or alter the Scheduled Tribes Order. [94-B-EJ

6.2. This Court in its judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Abhay,
directed that the State of Maharashtra should devise and frame a more rational
method for obtaining much in advance a certificate on the strength of which
F a reserved seat is claimed. But the High Court committed an error in
interpreting the scope of the Circular dated 31.7.1981 that the School Leaving
Certificate was conclusive of the caste. The Joint Parliamentary Committee
also did not make any recommendation to include 'Halba-Koshti' in the
Scheduled Tribes Order. Therefore, the circulars/resolution/instructions will
not help the respondent in any way. (95-A-BI
G
State of Maharashtra v. Abhay, AIR (1985) SC 328, referred to.

7.1. The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, while exercising the power of judicial review against an order of
inferior tribunal being supervisory and not appellate, the High Court would
H be justified in interfering with the conclusion of the tribunal, only when it
•
STATE v. MILIND 73
. reconls a finding that the inferior tribunal's conclusion is based upon A
exclusion of some admissible evidence or consideration of some inadmissible
evidence or the inferior tribunal has no jurisdiction at all or that the finding
is ~'Uch, which no reasonable man could arrive at, on the materials on record.
The .iurisdiction of the High Court would be much more restricted while
dealing with the question whether a particular caste or tribe would come within B
the puniew of the notified Presidential Order, considering the language of
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. These being the parameters and in
the case in hand, the Scrutiny Committee conducting the inquiry as well as
the Appellate Authority, having examined all relevant materials and having
recorded a finding that the respondent belonged to 'Koshti' caste and has no
identity with 'Halba-Halbi', which is the Scheduled Tribe under Entry 19 of C
the Presidential Order, relating to the State of Maharashtra, the High Court
exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by making a roving and in-depth
examination of the materials afresh and in coming to the conclusion that
'Koshtis' could be treated as 'Halbas'. ·[95-D-F)

7.2. In the light of Articles 341and342 of the Con~1itution a Scheduled D
Tribes Order can be amended only by the Parliament Hence it is not possible
to accept that orders/circulars issued by the State Government, which have
the effect of amending the Scheduled Tribes Order, were binding on the
Government or other affected parties. (96-8]

8. The respondent joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. E
Almo~115 years have 11assed since then. The respondent is said to have already
completed the course and may be he is practicing as a doctor. Therefore, at
this length of time it is for nobody's benefit, annul his admission. Huge amount
is s11ent on each candidate for completion of the medical course. No doubt,
one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining the medical course by F
the admission given to the respondent. If any action is taken against the
respondent, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on
whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this
judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by respondent and his practicing
as a doctor. But the respondent cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe
covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, the ~11ondent cannot G
take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other
Constitutional pu111oses. Mol'l.'<We1; the admissions and appointments that have
become final shall remain unaffected by this judgment (97-G-H; 98-A-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2294 of 1986. H

\
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A ·From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.85 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 2904of1984.

S.K. Dholakia, LG. Shah, G.L. Sanghi, V.A. Mohta, P.C. Jain, U.U. Lalit,
S.S. Shinde, S.W. Deshpande, S.V. Deshpande, Ms. Aparajita Singh, G.B.
Sathe, A.K. Sanghi, Ms. J.S. Wad, C.G. Solshe, N.B. Nadam, T.M. Gedam, J.
B Wad, Ashish Wad, Ms. Niharika Bahl, P. Narasimhan, D.N. Misra, S.W.A.
Qadri, S.K. Dwivedi, D.M. Nargolkar, Ravindra Bana and Shivaji M. Jadhav
for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. In this appeal, the following two questions
arise for consideration:-

( 1) Whether at all, it is permissible to hold enquiry and let in evidence
to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group
D within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even
though it is not specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950'?

(2) Whether 'Halba Koshti' caste is a sub-tribe within the meaning of
Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the said Scheduled Tribes Order relating to State of
E Maharashtra, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such?

On 8-1-1988, this Court passed the following order:-

"The prayer of the Union of India to be impleaded as party in both
the appeals and writ petition as party respondent is granted. The
name of the Union of India may be shown as the party respondent
F
when the matter is listed.

Both the sides agree that this matter involves a question which has
been decided by the Constitution Bench consisting of 5 Hon'ble
Judges of this Court and that there is also a subsequent judgment of
a Division Bench of 2 Hon 'ble Judges of this Court. One of the points
G
raised is that there is a conflict between the two judgments. Under the
circumstances, both sides state that this is a fit case for being referred
to the Constitution Bench. We accordingly direct that this matter be
placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the same before
the Constitution Bench. Both the sides state that the matter is very
H urgent and the matter be listed for early hearing. This request may,
STATE v. MILIND [PATIL, J.] 75
however, be addressed to the Constitution Bench." A
Pursuant to the said order, the appeal is placed before us for
consideration and decision.

The facts briefly stated to the extent they are relevant and required for
the decision are the following. B
The respondent no. I herein filed the Writ Petition No. 2944/84 at the
Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court to quash the orders passed by the
Director of Social Welfare (R-6) and the Additional Tribal Commissioner (R-
5) which invalidated the caste certificate issued to him as belonging to C
Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that Raoji Koshti of Khapa Town in Nagpur
Tehsil had a son by name Bajirao who had a son by name Sharad. The present
respondent no. I namely, Milind is the son of said Sharad. On the basis of
school certificate and other records of the respondent no. I and his close
relatives, he obtained caste certificate from the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur
on 20.8.1981 as belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe which is recognized as D
Scheduled Tribe. Having the said certificate, he applied to the Government
Medical College for admission to MBBS degree course for the year 1985-86
in the reserved category meant for Scheduled Tribes. It appears his name was
included in the merit list of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.
As per the procedure prescribed then, his certificate was sent for verification E
of the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Directorate of Social Welfare,
Pune. The said Committee after conducting enquiry and having due regard
to documents placed on record and other aspects concluded that the
respondent no. I did not belong to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. Consequently,
the Caste Certificate issued to him as such was rejected. The respondent no.
I, aggrieved by the order made by the Committee, filed an appeal before the F
Additional Tribal Commissioner, Nagpur. The appellate authority having held
further enquiry and after considering all aspects, by a detailed order dismissed
the appeal, clearly recording a finding that the respondent no. I belonged to
"Koshti" caste and that he did not belong to "Halba/Halbi" Scheduled Tribe.
The appellate authority went to the extent of saying that he belonged to
"Koshti" caste thereof. The appellate authority collected the birth register G
indicating the birth of a female child to Bajirao Raghoji, the school record of
Municipal Primary School, Khapa, indicating admission entries of said Bajirao,
as also the Dhaka! Kharij Register of Municipal Primary School containing the
entry of admission of Sharad, the father of the respondent no. I. From these
records, it was found that the entire family of respondent no. I belonged to H

\
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the 'Koshti' caste. The appellate authority recorded the statement of the .
father of the respondent, who accepted that these entries related to him, his
father and his step-sister Shantabai, daughter of Bajirao Koshti. In his statement,
he further admitted that all his relatives have married in their own caste and
there was no instance of inter-caste marriage having taken place; in the
B records, name of the caste and occupation were separately mentioned. His
own explanation was that entry 'Koshti' found in the documents did not
indicate caste but it only pertains to occupation. The appellate authority
looking to various other entries in the register found that the caste and
occupation are separately mentioned. It was also noticed that the respondent
no. I did not tender any evidence to show that he belonged to 'Halba-Koshti'
C sub-caste. The appellate authority referring to various imperial Gazetteers and
other public documents for a period of I 50 years came to the conclusion that
the 'Kosh ti' was an independent and distinct caste having no relationship or
identity with the 'Halba' /'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. It also took note of the
Circular dated 13 .2.1984 issued by the Central Government that 'Halba-Koshtis'
were seeking undue benefits of reservation by posing themselves as 'Halba'/
D 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe and in the light of clinching evidence the appellate
authority felt itself bound to hold that the respondent no. 1 did not belong
to the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe and declined to give presumptive value to the
school leaving certificate of the respondent no. I as postulated in the Circular
dated .31.07.1981, in the face of overwhelming evidence and circumstances to
E the contrary. Hence the respondent no. I filed the writ petition as already
mentioned above.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned
orders inter alia holding that it was permissible to enquire whether any sub-
division of a tribe was a part and parcel of the tribe mentioned therein and
F that 'Halba-Koshti' is a sub-division of main tribe 'Halba'/'Halbi' as per Entry
no. 19 in the Scheduled Tribe Order applicable to Maharashtra. Hence the
State of Maharashtra has came up in appeal by special leave, questioning the
validity and correctness of the order of the High Court allowing the writ
petition of the respondent no. I.
G Mr. S.K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, urged
that (I) the High Court committed an error in holding that it was permissible
to hold an enquiry whether a particular group is a part of the Scheduled Tribe
as specified in the Scheduled Tribe Order; (2) the High Cou1t was not right
in saying that the decision in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar, (1971]
H I SCR 804 laid down the correct principle of law contrary to the Constitution
STATE v. MILIND [PATIL, J.] 77
Bench decisions of this Court as to the scope of enquiry and the power to A
amend the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Order; (3) the High Court
misinterpreted the report of the Joint Committee of the Parliament placed
before it when representations for inclusion of"Halba Koshti" in the Scheduled
Tribes Order were rejected; (4) the High Court also committed an error in
invoking and applying the principle of stare decisis to the facts of the case B
in hand particularly when the earlier pronouncements were manifestly incorrect
and were rendered without having the benefit of law laid down by this Court;
(5) the High Court also erred in setting aside the orders of respondents 5 and
6 which were made on proper and full consideration of evidence and authorities;
(6) the findings of fact recorded by the authorities based on proper and
objective assessment of evidence could not be disturbed by the High Court; C
(7) it was also not correct on the part of the High Court to give undue
importance to the resolutions/circulars issuej by the State Government contrary
to law and without authority of law concerning the subject; and (8) it was not
correct to say that the issue involved in the case was already closed when
the same question was kept open by this Court in the State of Maharashtra
v. Abhay Sharavan Parathe, AIR (1985) SC 328. D
Per contra, Mr. G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel for the respondent
no. I made submissions supporting and justifying the ultimate conclusion
arrived at in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. According
to him, the old records relating to the period when there was no controversy,
clearly supported the case of the respondent no. I and the school leaving E
certificate issued to the respondent no. I was valid. He also submitted that
it was open to show that a particular caste was part of Scheduled Tribes
coming within the meaning and scope of tribal community even though it is
not described as such in the Presidential Order. The learned senior counsel
was not in a position to say that the principle of stare decisis could be applied p
to the facts of the case in hand. He finally submitted that at this length of
time, the career and future of the respondent no. I may be protected.
Mr. P.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel for respondent no. 3, submitted
that more or less he had similar submissions to make as advanced by Shri
Sanghi, the leaned senior counsel and there was nothing more to be added G
except saying that he represented the Adivasi Sangharsh Samiti, respondent
no. 3 and the decision that will be rendered in the case will have great impact
on large number of candidates.

We have deeply and carefully considered the contentions raised and
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A impugned judgment of the High Court.
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India read as under:-

"341. Scheduled Castes--(1) The President [may with respect to any
State [or Union territory], and where it is a State after consultation
with the Governor thereof] by public notification, specify the castes,
B
races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes
which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be
Scheduled Castes in relation to that State [or Union territory, as the
case may be].

c (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of
Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (I)
any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or
tribe, but save as aforesaid notification issued under the said clause
shall not be varied by any subsequent notification".

D "342. Scheduled Tribes (I) The President [may with respect to any
State [or Union territory], and where it is a State after consultation
with the Governor thereof] by public notification, specify the tribes or
tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal
communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be
deemed to be Scheduled tribes in relation to that State [or Union
E territory, as the case may be].

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of
Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (I)
any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or
tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the
F said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification."

By virtue of powers vested under Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution of India, the President is empowered to issue public notification
for the first time specifying the castes, races or tribes or part of or groups
G within castes, races, or tribes which shall, forthe purposes of the Constitution
be deemed to be Scheduled Casts or Schedules Tribes in relation to a State
or Union Territory, as the case may be. The language and terms of Articles
341 and 342 are identical. What is said in relation to Article 341 mutatis
mutandis applies to Article 342. The laudable object of the said Articles is to
provide additional protection to the members of the Scheduled Castes and
H Scheduled Tribes having regard to social and educational backwardness from
STATE v. MILIND (PATIL, .f.] 79
which they have been suffering since a considerable length of time. The A
words 'castes' or 'tribes' in the expression 'Scheduled Castes' and 'Scheduled
Tribes' are not used in the ordinary sense of the terms but are used in the
sense of the definitions contained in Article 366(24) and 366(25). In this view,
a caste is a Scheduled Caste or a tribe is a Scheduled Tribe only if they are
included in the President's Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 for the
purpose of the Constitution. Exercising the powers vested in him, the President
B
has issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Subsequently, some Orders were
issued under the said Articles in relation to Union Territories and other States
and there have been certain amendments in relation to Orders issued, by
Amendment Acts passed by the Parliament. C
Plain language and clear terms of these Articles show (I) the President
under Clause ( 1) of the said Articles may with respect to any State or Union
Territory and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor, by
public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups
within the castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution D
be deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State
or Union Territory as the case may be; (2) Under Clause (2) of the said
Articles, a notification issued under Clause (l) cannot be varied by any
subsequent notification except by law made by Parliament. In other words,
Parliament alone is competent by law to include in or exclude a caste/tribe E
from the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in notifications
issued under Clause (\) of the said Articles. In including castes and tribes
in Presidential Orders, the President is authorized to limit the notification to
parts or groups within the caste or tribe depending on the educational and
social backwardness. It is permissible that only parts or groups within them
could be·specified and further to specify castes or tribes thereof in relation F
to parts of the State and not to the entire State on being satisfied that it was
necessary to do so having regard to social and educational backwardness.
States had opportunity to present their views through Governors when
consulted by the President in relation to castes or tribes, parts or groups
within them either in relation to entire State or parts of State. It appears that G
the object of Clause ( l) of Articles 34 I and 342 was to keep away disputes
touching whether a caste/ tribe is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or not
for the purpose of the Constitution. Whether a particular caste or a tribe is
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be within the meaning
of the entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under clause (I) of
Articles 341 and 342 is to be determined looking to them as they are. Clause H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (2) of the said Articles does not pennit any one to seek modification of the
said orders by leading evidence that the caste/tribe (A) alone is mentioned
in the Order but caste/tribe (B) is also a part of caste/tribe (A) and as such
caste/tribe (B) should be deemed to be a scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
as the case may be. It is only the Parliament that is competent to amend the
Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. As can be seen from the Entries
B in the Schedules pertaining to each State whenever one caste/tribe has another
name it is so mentioned in the brackets after it in the Schedules. In this view
it serves no purpose to look at gazetteers or glossaries for establishing that
a particular caste/tribe is a Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose
of Constitution, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such in the
C Presidential Orders. Orders once issued under clause (I) of the said Articles,
cannot be varied by subsequent order or notification even by the President
except by law made by Parliament. Hence it is not possible to say that State
Governments or any other authority or courts or tribunals are vested with any
power to modify or vary said Orders. If that be so, no enquiry is permissible
and no evidence can be let in for establishing that a particular caste or part
D or group within tribes or tribe is included in Presidential Order if they are not
expressly included in the Orders. Since any exercise or attempt to amend the
Presidential Order except as provided in clause (2) of Articles 341 & 342 would
be futile, holding any enquiry or letting in any evidence in that regard is
neither pennissible nor useful.
E
In the case on hand, we are concerned with a Scheduled Tribe. In
exercise of the power conferred on him, the President issued the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (for short 'the Scheduled Tribes Order'), which
has been amended from time to time. By virtue of Clause (2), Parliament
passed in I 976 the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
F (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act I 08176). In the Order relating to Mah"arashtra,
(Part IX), Entry 19 relates to 'Halba'/'Halbi'. Few Scheduled Tribes listed in
Part IX of the Schedule relating to State of Maharashtra are given below, for
example-

Part IX - Maharashtra
G
(I) Andh
(2) Baiga ................ .
(6) Bharia Bhumia, Bhuinhar Bhumia, Pando ................ .
(8) Bhil, Bhil Garasia, Qholi Bhil, Dungri Bhil, Dungri Garasia, Mewasi
H
STATE v. MI LIND [PATIL, .I.] 81
Bhil, Rawal Bhil, Tadvi Bhil, Bhagalia, Bhilala Pawra, Vasava, A
Vasave .............. .
(12) Chodhara (excluding Akola, Amravati, Bhandara, Buldana,
Chandrapur, Nagpur, Wardha, Yavatmal, Aurangabad, Bhir,
Nanded, Osmanabad and Parbhani districts)
(13) Dhanka, Tadvi, Tetaria, Valvi .............. . B
(16) Dubla, talavia Halpati
(17) Gamit, Gamta, Gavit, Mavchi, Padvi
(18) Gond, rajgond, arakh, arrakh, Agaria, Asur, Badi Maria, Bada
Maria, Bhatola, Bhimma, Bhuta, Koilabhuta, Koilabhuti, Bhar, C
Bisonhorn Maria, Chota Maria, Dandami Maria, Dhuru, Dhurwa,
Dhoba, Dhulia, Dorla, Kaiki; Gatta, Gatti, Gaita, Gond Gowari, Hill
Maria, Kuchaki Maria, Madia, Maria, Mana, Mannewar, Moghya,
Mogia, Monghya, Mudia, Muria, Nagarchi, Naikpod, Nagwanshi,
Ojha, Raj, Sonjhari Jhareka, Thatia, Thotya, Wade Maria, Vade
Maria D
(19) Halba, Halbi ........... .
(21) Kathodi, Katkari, Dhor Kathodi, Dhor Kathkari, Son Kathodi, Son
Katkari ........... .
(47)
E
Although this Schedule is amended by law made by Parliament, Entry 19 is
not amended for adding 'Halba-Koshti' in the said Entry. Looking to the other
Entries extracted above in the same part, it is clear that wherever a particular
area was to be excluded, it is so done by mentioning the same in the concerned
(Entry relating to a tribe). Similarly, if a tribe or tribal community had other
names and they were to be included in the Entry, it is done by mentioning F
them specifically. When there was agitation and representation to include
'Halba Koshti' within Scheduled Tribes even long before Amendment Act,
1976 was passed and the very fact that 'Halba-Koshti' was not included
within Entry 19 relating to 'Halba/Halbi', negatives the claim of the Respondent
No. I. Further if 'Halba Koshti' was part of group or sub-tribe of 'Halba'/ G
· Halbi' Tribe, there was no need for representation to include it before
Parliamentary Joint Committee.

In the debates of Constituent Assembly (Official Report, Vol. 9) while
moving to add new Articles 300-A and 300-B after Article 300 (corresponding
to Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution), Dr. B.R. Ambedker explained as H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A follows:-

"The object of these two articles, as I stated, was to eliminate the
necessity of burdening the Constitution with long lists of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is now proposed that the President
in consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State should have the
B power to issue a general notification in the Gazette specifying all the
Castes and Tribes or groups thereof deemed to be Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of this privileges which have
been defined for them in the Constitution. The only limitation that has
been imposed is this: that once a notification has been issued by the
President, which, undoubtedly, he will be issuing in consultation with
c and on the advice of the Government of each State, thereafter, if any
elimination was to be made from the List so notified or any addition
was to be made that must be made by Parliament and not by the
President. The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors
having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so
D published by the President." (emphasis supplied)

Thus it is clear that States have no power to amend Presidential Orders.
Consequently a party in power or the Government of the day in a State is
relieved from the pressure or burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders
either to gain popularity or secure votes. Number of persons in order to gain
E advantage in securing admissions in educational institutions and employment
in State Services have been claiming as belonging to either Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes depriving genuine and needy persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes covered by the Presidential Orders,
defeating and frustrating to a large extent the very object of protective
discrimination given to such people based on their educational and social
F backwardness. Courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with
the question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of
tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the Entries mentioned in the
Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 particularly so when in
clause (2) of the said Article, it is expressly stated that said orders cannot be
G amended or varied except by law made by Parliament. The power to include
or exclude, amend or alter Presidential Order is expressly and exclusively
conferred on and vested with the Parliament and that too by making a law
in that regard. The President had the benefit of consulting States through
Governors of States which had the means and machinery to find out and
recommend as to whether a particular caste or tribe was to be included in the
H Presidential Order. If the said Orders are to be amended, it is the Parliament
STATEv. MILIND[PATIL,J.] 83
that is in a better position to know having means and machinery unlike courts A
as to why a particular caste or tribe is to be included or excluded by law to
be made by Parliament. Allowing the State Governments or courts or other
authorities or tribunals to hold enquiry as to whether a particular caste or tribe
should be considered as one included in the Schedule of the Presidential
Order, when it is not so specifically included, may lead to problems. In order B
to gain advantage of reservations for the purpose of Articles 15(4) or 16(4)
several persons have been coming forward claiming to be covered by
Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. This apart when no
other authority other than the Parliament, that too by law alone can amend
the Presidential Orders, neither the State Governments nor the courts nor
tribunals nor any authority can assume jurisdiction to hold enquiry and take C
evidence to declare that a caste or a tribe or part of or a group within a caste
or tribe is included in. Presidential Orders in one Entry or the other although
they are not expressly and specifically included. A court cannot alter or
amend the said Presidential Orders for the very good reason that it has no
power to do so within the meaning, content and scope of Articles 341 and
342. It is not possible to hold that either any enquiry is permissible or any D
evidence can be let in, in relation to a particular caste or tribe to say whether
it is included within Presidential Orders when it is not so expressly included.

In 8. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa', a Constitution Bench of
this Court has held thus :-
E
"It may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in
the Order by producing evidence to show (for example) that though
caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste B is also a part of Caste
A and therefore must be deemed to be included in caste A. It may also
be accepted that wherever one caste has another name it has been F
mentioned in brackets after it in the Order [see Aray (Mala) Dakkal
(Dokkalwar) etc.] Therefore generally speaking it would not be open
to any person lo lead evidence to establish that caste B (in the
example quoted above) is part of caste A notified in the Order.
Ordinarily therefore it would not have been open in the present case
to give evidence that the Voddar caste was the same as the Bhovi G
caste specified in the Order for Voddar caste is not mentioned in
brackets after the Bhovi caste in the Order."
(emphasis supplied)
Thereafter looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court
1[1965]1SCR316. H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20001 SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

·A went on to say that :-
"The difficulty in the present case arises from the fact (which was not
disputed before the High Court) that in the Mysore State as it was
before the re-organisation of 1956 there was no caste known as Bhovi
at all. The Order refers to a scheduled caste known as Bhovi in the
B Mysore State as it was before 1956 and therefore it must be accepted
that there was some caste which the President intended to include
after consultation with the Rajpramukh in the Order when the Order
mentions the caste Bhovi as a scheduled caste. It cannot be accepted
that the President included the caste Bhovi in the Order though there
was no such caste at all in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956.
c But when it is not disputed that there was no caste specifically known
as Bhovi in the Mysore State before 1956, the only course open to
courts to find out which caste was meant by Bhovi is to take evidence
in that behalf. If there was a caste known as Bhovi as such in the
Mysore State as it existed before 1956, evidence could not be given
D to prove that any other caste was included in the Bhovi caste. But
when the undisputed fact is that there was no caste specifically
known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956 and one
finds a caste mentioned as Bhovi in the Order, one has to determine
which was the caste which was meant by that word on its inclusion
in the Order. It is this peculiar circumstance therefore which
E necessitated the taking of evidence to determine which was the caste
which was meant by the word "Bhovi" used in the Order, when no
caste was specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before the
re-organisation of 1956."

F Again a Constitution Bench of this Court in a later decision in Bhaiyalal
v. Harikishan Singh and Others' did not accept the plea of the appellant that
although he was not a Chamar as such he could claim the same status by
reason of the fact that he belonged to Dohar Caste which is sub-caste of
Chamar. Even after referring to the case of Basavallingappa (supra) it was
held that an enquiry of that kind would not be permissible in the light of the
G provisions contained in Article 341 of the Constitution. In that case the
appellant's election was challenged inter alia on the ground that he belonged
to the Dohar Caste which was not recognized as a Scheduled Caste for the
district in question and so his declaration that he belonged to the Chamar
Caste which was a Scheduled Caste was improper and was illegally accepted
by the Returning Officer. The Election Tribunal declared that the election was
H 2[1965] I SCR 877.
STATEv MILIND[PAT!L,J.j 85
invalid. On appeal the High Court confirmed the same. This Court also A
dismissed the appeal pointing out that the plea that the Dohar Caste is a sub-
caste of the Chamar Caste, could not be entertained in view of the Constitution
Scheduled Castes Order, 1950 issued by the President under Article 341 of the
Constitution. It is also stated that in order to determine whether or not a
particular caste is a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of Article 341, one B
has to look at the public notification issued by the President in that behalf.
The notification referred to Chamar, Jatav or Mochi. The Court observed that
the enquiry, which the Election Tribunal could hold was whether or not the
appellant is a Chamar, Jatav or Mochi and held thus :-

"The plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he can C
claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to the
Dohar caste which is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste, cannot be
accepted. It appears to us that an enquiry of this kind would not be
permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Article
341." (emphasis supplied)
Referring to the case of Basavcllingappa (supra) the Court explained D
thus :-

"In the case of B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa & Ors. this
Court had occasion to consider a similar question. The question
which arose for decision in that case was whether respondent no. I,
though Voddar by caste, belonged to the scheduled caste of Bhovi E
mentioned in the Order, and while holding that an enquiry into the
said question was permissible, the Court has elaborately referred to
the special and unusual circumstances which justified the High Court
in holding that Voddar caste was the same as the Bhovi caste within
the meaning of the Order: otherwise the normal rule would be : "ft F
may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the
Order by producing evidence to show, for example, that though caste
A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste B is also a part of caste a
and, therefore, must be deemed to be included in caste A". That is
another reason why the plea made by the appellant that the Dohar
caste is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste and as such must be deemed G
to be included in the Order, cannot be accepted." (emphasis supplied)

It may be noticed that in both the Constitution Bench judgments (supra),
· P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.j., K.N. Wanchoo, and M. Hidayatullah JJ. were common
members.
'[1969] I SCR 997.
H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. S S.C.R.

A In Parasram and Anr. v. Shivchand and Ors. 3 referring to the two
Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Basava//ingappa and Bhaiyala/
aforementioned, this Court declared that :-

"These judgments are binding on us and we do not therefore think
that it would be of any use to look into the gazetteers and the
B glossaries on the Punjab castes and tribes to which reference was
made at the Bar to find out whether mochi and chamar in some parts
of the State at least meant the same caste although there might be
some difference in the professions followed by their members, the
main difference being that Chamars skin dead animals which mochis

c do not. However, that may be, the question not being open to agitation
by evidence and being one the determination of which lies within the
exclusive power of the President, it is not for us to examine it and
come to a conclusion that if a person was in fact a mochi, he could
still claim to belong to the scheduled caste of chamars and be allowed
to contest an election on that basis."
D
In that case a good deal of evidence was adduced and arguments were
advanced as to whether the word 'Chamar' and 'Mochi' were synonymous.
This Court further observed :-

"Once we hold that it is not open to this Court to scrutinize whether
E a person who is properly described as a mochi also falls within the
caste of chamars and can describe himself as such, the question of
the impropriety of the rejection of his nomination paper based on such
distinction disappears."

In two cases, Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar & Ors. 4 and Dina
F v. Narayan Singh', Division Benches of this Court took a contrary view to
say that evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing what an Entry in
the Presidential Order was intended to be while stating that the Entries in the
Presidential Order have to be taken as final and the scope of enquiry and
admissibility of evidence is confined within the limitations indicated.

G A three Judge Bench of this Court in Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State
of Tripura & Ors. •referring to the two Constitution Bench Judgments (supra)
and the Division Bench judgments of Bhaiyaram Munda and Dina (supra) has

'[1969] I SCR 997.
"38ELR212.
H ''[1990] Slupp. sec 220.
STATEv. MILIND [PATIL, J.] 87
held thus:- A
"The two Constitution Bench judgments indicate that enquiry is
contemplated before the Presidential Order is made but any amendment
to the Presidential Order can only be by legislation. We do not think
we should assume jurisdiction and enter into an enquiry to determine
whether the three terms indicated in the Presidential Order include B
Deshi Tripura which covers the Laskar community; but we consider
it appropriate to commend to the authorities concerned that as and
when the question is reviewed it should be examined whether the·
ciaim of th~ appellant representing the Laskar community to be included
in the scheduled tribes is genuine and should, therefore, be C
entertained."

Yet, again a three Judge Bench of this Court in Pa/ghat Ji/la Thandan
Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi & Anr. v. State of Kera/a & Anr. 7 has held
that neither the State Government nor the court can enquire into or let in
evidence relating to any claim as belonging to Scheduled Castes in any Entry D
of the Scheduled Castes Order. Scheduled Castes Order has to be applied as
it stands until the same is amended by appropriate legislation. Para 20 of the
said judgment reads thus:-

"Learned counsel for. the· State relied upon the decision in Bhaiya
Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar referred to in paragraph 15 of the E
judgment in Srish Kumar Choudhury case for the view taken there was
that evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing what an
entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean. In paragraphs
8, 9, IO and 11 of the judgment, in Srish Kumar Choudhury case the
Constitution Bench judgments referred to above are discussed, as
also two other judgments taking the same view. Then, in paragraph F
14, the judgments of this Court in the case of Dina v. Narayan Singh
and Bhiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar are referred to and it is
stated that both were rendered by the same Bench of two learned
Judges. Paragraph 14 goes on to set out the substance of the decision
in Dina case and paragraph 15 sets out the substance of the decision G
in Bhaiya Ram case. In paragraph 16 it is said,: "These authorities
clearly indicate, therefore, that the entries in the Presidential Order
have to be taken as final and the scope of enquiry and admissibility
of evidence is confined within the limitations indicated. It is, however,

'(1994] 1 sec 359. H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A not open to the court to make any addition or subtraction from the
Presidential Order." There is, therefore, no doubt that the Court in
Srish Kumar Choudhury case accepted and followed, as it was bound
to do, the Constitution Bench judgments and not the two Judge
judgments in the Dina and Bhiya Ram Munda cases."

B In Nityanand Sharma & Another v. State of Bihar and Others' the view
expressed is that it is for the Parliament to amend the law and the Schedule
to include or exclude from the Schedule a tribe or tribal community or part of
or group within a tribe or tribal community in the State, District or Region and
its declaration is conclusive. The court has no power to declare synonymous
C as equal to the tribes specified in the Order or include in or substitute any
caste/tribe etc.

In the impugned judgment, the High Court refers to the two Constitution
Bench judgments in Basava/ingappa and Bhaiyalal and also notes statement
made in the said decisions that "It may be accepted that it not open to make
D any modification in the Order by producing evidence to show (for example)
that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste B is also a part
of caste A and, therefore, must be deemed to be included in caste A. It may
also be accepted that wherever one caste has another name it has been
mentioned in brackets after it in the Order (See Aray (Mala), Dakkal (Dokkalwar)
etc). Therefore, generally speaking it would not be open to any person to lead
E evidence to establish that caste B (in the example quoted above) is part of
caste A notified in the Order. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not have been
open in the present case to give evidence that the Voddar Caste was the same
as the Bhovi Caste specified in the order for Voddar Caste is not mentioned
in brackets after the Bhovi Caste in the Order." "However, that may be, the
p question not being open to agitation by evidence and being one the
determination of which lies within the exclusive power of the President, it is
not for us to examine it and come to a conclusion that if a person was in fact
a Mochi, he could still claim to belong to the Scheduled Caste of Chamars
and be allowed to contest an election on that basis." The High Court again,
in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment, observed that, "it is quite clear
G that the list once prepared by the President can be amended only by the
Parliament and by none else''. Having said so, the High Court went wrong
in relying on Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Bhaiya
Ram Munda and Dina and the Full Bench decision of Orissa High Court in
K. Adikanada Patra v. Gandua, AIR ( 1983) Orissa 89, to take a contrary view
H '[I 996J 3 sec 576.
STATEv. MILIND[PATIL,J.] 89
in saying that there was no legal bar in holding enquiry as to whether 'Halba- A
Koshti' is a part and parcel or sub division of'Halba'/'Halbi' or not. We have
no hesitation in saying that the High Court committed a serious error in not
following the aforementioned two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court
and preferring to follow Division Bench judgments of this Court and the Full
Bench judgment of Orissa High Court which did not lay down the law B
correctly on the question.

Being in respectful agreement, We reaffirm the ratio of the two
Constitution Bench judgments aforementioned and state in clear terms that
no enquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, to find out and
decide that if any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe C
or tribal community is included within the scope and meaning of the concerned
Entry in the Presidential Order when it is not so expressly or specifically
included. Hence, we answer the question no. 1 in negative.

The Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra, Pune (R6) on an elaborate
enquiry by a reasoned and detailed order invalidated the caste certificate D
issued to respondent no. 1 as belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. The
Additional Tribal Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur (RS), on further
enquiry in the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 dismissed the appeal by
a well-merited order passed on detailed and objective consideration and
evaluation of the evidence placed on record. The feeble argument based on E
circulars issued by State Government advanced on behalf of the respondent
no. I was that the old records relating to undisputed point of time and the
school certificate should have been accepted, was rejected for the reasons
stated in the orders passed by the Director of Social Welfare and the Additional
Tribal Commissioner - the appellate authority. The Scrutiny Committee, as is
evident from its decision dated 16.11.1983, found that the word · Halba' in the F
service book entry in respect of uncle of respondent no. I was written in a
different ink and it was unworthy of credence; the census report of the year
193 l of the Khapa town did not show even a single digit population of Halba/
Halbi Tribe; the respondent no. I gave answer to the questionnaire that he
was not aware about the traits and characteristics, customs, deities, religious G
beliefs etc. of the Halba Tribe. On further enquiry in the appeal, it was
revealed that the entry at Sr. No. 3065 in the Dakhal Kharij Register of the
Municipal Primary School, Shendurjunaghat, Amravati of the year 1944-45
shows that the caste of Sharad, son of Bajirao, father of the respondent no.
I was Koshti; in the Birth Register of Khapa town the entry dated 2.5.1934
related to a female child Shantabai born to Shri Bajirao revealed the caste of H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Shri Bajirao as Koshti; entry at Sr. No. 913 in the register maintained by the
Municipal Primary School, Khapa, for the period 1918-1932 in respect of said
Bajirao was shown as belonging to 'Koshti' caste and his occupation was
shown in the separate column as' weaving'. The appellate authority took note
of the preponderance of uninterrupted and consistent evidence of over 150
B years comprising of official publications and authorities like the Imperial and
District Gazetteers, Revenue Settlement Reports, Decennial Census Reports
and works of renowned Sociologists and Ethnographers. Thus having regard
to the evidence and material on record, the appellate authority concluded that
the 'Koshti' Caste on one hand and the 'Halba' Tribe on the other constituted
two different and distinct entities. After reading the said orders, we find that
C the authorities rightly rejected the claim of the respondent no. 1 as belonging
to Scheduled Tribe. It must be stated here itself that the High Court did not
go into the correctness of the findings of fact recorded by these two authorities
in negativing the claim of the respondent no. 1. It proceeded to hold in favour
of the respondent no. I on other grounds to which we will refer hereafter.
Even otherwise, looking to the evidence placed on record and the detailed
D reasons given by the respondents 6 and 5 in their orders, it is not possible
to say that the orders passed by them were not based on evidence or they
were unsustainable for any reason. Merely because a school certificate has
to be taken as valid as stated in a circular by the State Government, it was
not conclusive in the light of clinching and telling evidence against the claim
E of the respondent no. I and in view of the circulars I instructions issued by
the Central Govt. and other circulars of the State Govt. holding the field.

The High Court to support its view that 'Halba-Koshti' is included in
'Halba' or 'Halbi' Tribe relied on the following decisions of High Courts - (I)
Sonabai v. Lakhmibai, (1956) NLJ 725 (decided by the Division Bench of
F erstwhile Nagpur High Court); (2) Madhukar Dekate v, Dean of the Medical
College, Nagpur, (Letter Patent Appeal No. 157/1955, decided on 4th August,
1957 by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court; (3) Sunit Nana
Umredkar v. Dr. VG. Ranade, (Writ Petition No. 2404 of 1980, decided on 24th
September, 1980 by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court); (4) Prabodh
G Parhate v. The Stale of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (Writ Petition No. 1450
of 198 I decided on 21st January, I 982 by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh
High Court; (5) Abhay Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (1984 Mah. L.J. 289
- a decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court); (6) Ku.
Kalpana Bhishikar v. Director of Social Welfare, (Writ Petition No. 95 of
1985, decided on 14th February, 1985 by Division Bench of Bombay High
H Court). Jn paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has stated
STATEv. MILIND[PATIL,J.] 91

thus:- A
"It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that these decisions
rendered during a long span of over 34 years by different Benches of
different High Courts consistently holding that "Halba Koshti" is
"Halba" must have or in any case reasonably supposed to have
affected the course of life of a large portion of the community and B
now taking a different view, would lead to uncertainty and chaos and
hence we should desist from making a departure. We see considerable
force in the submission specially in the background of the undisputed
position that even the Government recognized "Halba Koshtis" as
"Halba" for a long period of nearly ten years between 1967 to 1977 C
by issuing circulars/instructions from time to time."

The High Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis on the grounds
that the decisions referred to above were considered judgments; even
Government accepted their correctness in the courts; the State Government
independently took the same view after repeated deliberations for number of D
years; taking a contrary view would lead to chaos, absurd contradictions
resulting in great public mischief. In our view, the High Court was again
wrong in this regard. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no. I was
not in a position to support this reasoning of the High Court and rightly so
in our opinion. In the decisions listed above except the first two decisions, E
all other decisions were rendered subsequent to two Constitution Bench
judgments (supra) of this Court. The first two judgments were delivered in
1956 and 1957. In this view, the High Court was not right in stating that the
decisions were rendered during a long span of over 34 years by different
benches of different High Courts, consistently holding that 'Halba-Koshti' is
'Halba'. The rule of stare decisis is not inflexible so as to preclude a departure F
therefrom in any case but its application depends on facts and circumstances
of each case. It is good to proceed from precedent to precedent but it is earlier
the better to give quietus to the incorrect one by annulling it to avoid
repetition or perpetuation of injustice, hardship and anything ex-facie illegal
more particularly when a precedent runs counter to the provisions of the G
Constitution. The first two decisions were rendered without having the benefit
of the decisions of this Court, that too concerning the interpretation of the
provisions of the Constitution. The remaining decisions were contrary to the
law laid down by this Court. This Court in Maktul v. Manbhari & Ors., [ 1959]
SCR I 099 adopting the statement of law found in Halsbury and Corpus Juris
Secundum observed thus:- H
92 SCPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A "But the Supreme appellate court will not shirk from overruling a
decision, or series of a decisions, which establish a doctrine plainty
outside the statue and outside the common law, when no title and no
contract will be shaken, no persons can complain and no general
course of dealing to be altered by the remedy of a mistake." (From
Halsbury). "Because decisions should not be followed to the extent
B that grievous wrong may result and accordingly the courts ordinarily
will not adhere to a rule or principle established by previous decisions
which they are convinced is erroneous. The rule of stare decisis is not
so imperative or inflexible as to preclude a departure therefrom in any
case, but its application must be determined in each case by the
c discretion of the Court and previous decisions should not be followed
to the extent that error may be perpetuated and grievous wrong may
result"
(From Corpus Juris Secondum)

The decisions relied on by the High Court to apply the doctrine of stare
D ·decisis, firstly, were not holding the field for long time. Secondly, they are
evidently contrary to the constitutional provisions. Thirdly, all the decisions
rendered by the High Courts after 1965 were not consistent with the law laid
down. by this Court. Fourthly, if the view of the High Court is accepted, it will
lead to absurd, unjust and ex-facie illegal results running contrary to Articles
E 341 and 342 of the Constitution. Fifthly, this Court in State of Maharashtra
v. Abhay and Ors., AIR (1985) SC 328 specifically had kept open the larger
question whether 'Halba-Koshti' is Halba. The High Court in the impugned
judgment refers to this decision but only states that the said judgment shall
govern the petitioner only. Sixthly, all the said decisions were not directly on
the point relating to Scheduled Tribes Order issued under Article 342 of the
F Constitution; some of the cases arose out of civil disputes involving adoption.
Seventhly, even the State Government was not consistent in its stand touching
the issue whether 'Halba-Koshtis' were 'Halba'/'Halbis' to consider them as
Scheduled Tribes. As early as on 20.7.1962 itself a circular was issued to the
effect that 'Halba-Koshtis' were not Scheduled Tribes. Further a look at the
G various circulars I resolutions/instructions/orders referred to in paragraphs 20
to 22 of the impugned judgment, makes it clear that the controversy was'not
settled. Hence it cannot be said that the view 'Halba-Koshti' was 'Halba'/
'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe was holding the field for long time. There arose no
question of unsettling or upsetting the position in law which itself was not
a settled one, till first Constitution judgment in Basavalingappa case was
H delivered by this Court. Per contra, the impugned judgment runs contrary to
STATE v. MILIND [PATIL, J.] 93
the law clearly settled by various judgments of this Court. A
Thus, the High Court was not right in invoking and applying the
doctrine of stare decisis on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

The High Court in paragraphs 20 to 23 dealt with circulars/resolutions/
instructions/orders made by the Government from time to time on the issue
of 'Halba-Koshtis'. It is stated in the said judgment that up to 20.7.1962 B
'Halba-Koshtis' were treated as 'Halbas' in the specified areas of Vidarbha.
Government of Maharashtra, Education and Social Welfare Department issued
Circular No. CBC 1462/3073/M to the effect that 'Halba-Koshtis' were not
Scheduled Tribes and they are different from 'Halba'/'Halbis'. In the said
circular it is also stated that certain persons not belonging to 'Halba' Tribe C
have been taking undue advantage and that the authorities competent to
issue Caste Certificates should take particular care to see that no person
belonging to 'Halba-Koshtis' or 'Koshti' community is given a certificate
declaring him as member of Scheduled Tribes. On 22.8.1967 the above-
mentioned circular of 20. 7.1962 was withdrawn. Strangely, on 27 .9. l 967, another
circular No. CBC-1466/9183/M was issued showing the intention to treat D
'Halba- Koshti' as 'Halba'. On 30.5.1968 by letter No. CBC-1468-2027-0, the
State Government informed the Deputy Secretary to the Lok Sabha that
'Halba-Koshti' is 'Halba' /'Halbi' and it should be specifically included in the
proposed Amendment Act. Government of Maharashtra on 29.7.1968 by letter
No. EBC-1060/49321-J-76325 informed the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes
E
and Scheduled Tribes that 'Halba-Koshti' community has been shown included
in the list of Scheduled Tribes in the State and the students belonging to that
community were eligible for Government of India Post Matric Scholarships.
On 1.1.1969 Director of Social Welfare, Tribal Research Institute, Pune, by his
letter No. TRI/l/H.K./68-69 stated that the State Government could not in law
amend the Scheduled Tribe Order and that a tribe not specifically included, F
could not be treated as Scheduled Tribe. In this vii:w the Director sought for
clarification. The Government of India on 21.4.1969 wrote to the State
Government that in view of Basavafingappa's case (supra) 'Halba-Koshti'
community could be treated as Scheduled Tribe only if it is added to the list
as a sub-tribe in the Scheduled Tribes Order and not otherwise. Thereafter G
few more circulars were issued by the State Government between 24.10.1969
and 6.11.1974 to recognize 'Halba-Koshtis' as 'Halbas' and indicated as to
who were the authorities competent to issue certificates and the guidelines
were given for enquiry. There was again departure in the policy of the State
Government by writing a confidential letter No. CBC-!076/1314/Desk-V dated
18.1.1977. Government informed the District Magistrate, Nagpur, that 'Halba- H
..

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Koshtis' should not be issued 'Halba' Caste Certificate. Thereafter, few more
circulars, referred to in paragraph 22 of the judgment, were issued. It may not
be necessary to refer to tho~e again except to. the circular dated 31.7.1981
bearing No. CBC-1481/(703)/D.V. by which the Government directed that until
further orders insofar as 'Halbas' are concerned, the school leaving certificate
B should be accepted as valid for the purpose of the caste. Vide Resolution
dated 23.1.1985 a new Scrutiny Committee was appointed for verification of
castes certificates of Scheduled Tribes. The High Court had observed in
paragraph 23 of the judgment that several circulars issued earlier were
withdrawn but the said circular dated 31.7.1981 was not withdrawn. For the
first time on 8.3.1985 the Scrutiny Committee was authorized to hold enquiry
C if there was any reason to believe that the certificate was manipulated or
fabricated or had been obtained by producing insufficient evidence. Referring
to these circulars/resolutions the High Court took the view that the caste
certificate issued to the respondent no. I could be considered as valid and
upto 8.3.1985 the enquiry was governed by circular dated 31.7.1981. The High
Court dealing with the stand of the State Government on the issue of 'Halba-
D Koshti', from time to time, and also referring to circulars/resolutions/.
instructions held in favour of the respondent no. I on the ground that the
appellant was bound by its own circulars/orders. No doubt, it is true, the
stand of the appellant as to the controversy relating to 'Halba-Koshti' has
been varying from time to time but in the view we have taken on question
E no. 1, the circulars/resolutions/instructions issued by the State Government
from time to time, some time contrary to the instructions issued by the Central
Government, are of no consequence. They could be simply ignored as the
State Government had neither authority nor competency to amend or alter the
Scheduled Tribes Order. It appears taking note of false and frivolous claims
being made by persons not entitled to claim such status, the Government of
F India addressed letters and issued instructions between the period from
21.4.1969 to 1982 to impress that there should be strict enquiry before issuance
of caste certificates to persons claiming Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
status; strict scrutiny into the caste of the parent should be effected as a
check-point. The State Government issued Resolution dated 29 .10.1980 in
G consonance with the instructions given by the Central Government laying
down the guidelines on which the enquiry should be held before issue of
Caste Certificate. Another Resolution dated 24.2.1981 was also issued for
appointing a scrutiny committee to verify whether the Caste Certificate has
been issued to person who is really entitled to it in view of the complaints
of misuse of reservational benefits on a large scale. These Resolutions were
H operative as they had not been repealed. This Court in its judgment dated
STATE v. MILIND [PATIL,).] 95
19.10.1984 State of Maharashtra v. Abhay & Ors., AIR (1985) SC 328 directed A
that the State of Maharashtra should devise and frame a more rational method
for obtaining much in advance a certificate on the strength of which a
reserved seat is claimed. But the High Court committed an error in interpreting
the scope of the Circular dated 31. 7 .1981 that the School Leaving Certificate
was conclusive of the caste. This interpretation was plainly inconsistent with. B
the instructions and resolutions stated above. Further it may be also noticed
here that the Joint Parliamentary Committee did not make any recommendation
to include 'Halba-Koshti' in the Scheduled Tribes Order. At any rate the
Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is until it is amended under clause
(2) of Article 342. In this view also, the circulars/resolutions/instructions will
not help the respondent no. 1 in any way. Even otherwise, as already stated C
above, on facts found and established the authorities have rejected the claim
of the respondent no. 1 as to the Caste Certificate. The power of the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while exercising the
power of judicial review against an order of inferior tribunal being supervisory
and not appellate, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the D
conclusion of the tribunal, only when it records a finding that the inferior
tribunal's conclusion is based upon exclusion of some admissible evidence
or consideration of some inadmissible evidence or the inferior tribunal has no
jurisdiction at all or that the finding is such, which no reasonable man could
arrive at, on the materials on record. The jurisdiction of the High Court would
be much more restricted while dealing with the question whether a particular E
caste or tribe would come within the purview of the notified Presidential
Order, considering the language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
These being the parameters and in the case in hand, the Committee conducting
the inquiry as well as the Appellate Authority, having examined all relevant
materials and having recorded a finding that respondent no. I belong to
'Koshti' caste and has no identity with the 'Halba/Halbi', which is the F
Scheduled Tribe under Entry 19 of the Presidential Order, relating to State of
Maharashtra, the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by making
a roving and in-depth examination of the materials afresh and in coming to
the conclusion that 'Koshtis' could be treated as 'Halbas'. In this view the
High Court could not upset the finding of fact in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. G
Hence, we have to essentially answer the question no. 2 also in the negative.
Hence it is answered accordingly.

The arguments advanced before the High Court on behalfofan intervener
relying on Articles 162, 256 to 258 and 339(2) of the Constitution of India that
instructions issued by the Central Government in the matter have overriding H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A effect over the instructions issued by the State Government, was lightly
brushed aside on the ground that this aspect assured little importance in the
view taken by the High Court that the State Government was bound by the
circulars issued by it. We have alreadY, expressed above the view in the light
of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution that a Scheduled Tribes Order can
B be amended only by the Parliament. Hence it is not possible to accept that
orders/circulars issued by the State Government, which have the effect of
amending Scheduled Tribes Order, were binding on the Government or other
affected parties.
-
In order to protect and promote the less fortunate or unfortunate people
C who have been suffering from social handicap, educational backwardness
besides other disadvantages, certain provisions are made in the Constitution
with a view to see that they also have the opportunity to be on par with
others in the society. Certain privileges and benefits are conferred on such
people belonging to Scheduled Tribes by way of reservations in admission
to educational institutions (professional colleges) and in appointments in
D services of State. The object behind these provisions is noble and laudable
besides being vital in bringing a meaningful social change. But, unfortunately,
even some better placed persons by producing false certificates as belonging
to Scheduled Tribes have been capturing or cornering seats or vacancies
reserved for Scheduled Tribes defeating the very purpose for which the
E provisions are made in the Constitution. The Presidential Orders are issued
under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution recognizing and identifying the
needy and deserving people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes mentioned therein for the constitutional purpose of availing benefits
of reservation in the matters of admissions and employment. If these benefits
are taken away by those for whom they are not meant, the people for whom
F they are really meant or intended will be deprived of the same and their
sufferings will continue. Allowing the candidates not belonging to Scheduled
Tribes to have the benefit or advantage of reservation either in admissions
or appointments leads to making mockery of the very reservation against the
mandate and the scheme of the Constitution.
G
In the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge:-

I. It is not at all permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any
evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community
or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included
H in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned
STATEv. MILIND[PATJL,J.] 97
in the concerned Entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) A
Order, 1950.

2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even
permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any
tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned
in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically B
mentioned in it.

3. A notification issued under Clause (I) of Article 342, specifying
Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by
the Parliament. In otlier words, any tribe or tribal community or
part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from C
the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under Clause (I) of Article 342
only by the Parliament by law and by no other authority.

4. It is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any
other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled
Tribes specified in the notification issued under Clause (I) of D
Article 342.

5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Bhaiya Ram
Munda v. Anirudh Patar & others, [1971] I SCR 804 and Dina
v. Narayan Singh. (38 ELR 212), did not lay down law correctly
in stating that the enquiry was permissible and the evidence was E
admissible within the limitations indicated for the purpose of
showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to
be. As stated in position (I) above no enquiry at all is permissible
and no evidence can be let in, in the matter.

Having regard to all aspects and for the reasons stated above, this F
appeal merits acceptance. Hence, it is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order of the High Court are set aside.

Respondent no. 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost
15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the G
course and may be he is practicing as doctor. In this view and at this length
of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his Admission. Huge amount is
spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one
Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the
admission given to respondent no. I. If any action is taken against respondent
no. I, it may lead depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment
shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. But
we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe
covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take
advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other
constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given
B circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.
16372/85 and other related matters, we make it clear that the admissions and
appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment.

No costs.

c v.s.s. Appeal allowed.