Holding

Civil courts lack jurisdiction to declare Scheduled Tribe status; such declarations are conclusive under Articles 341 and 342, and the suit is not maintainable.

Summary

The respondent, A. Gurusamy, obtained a certificate in 1971 claiming Scheduled Tribe (Kattunaicken) status, which was later cancelled after an enquiry revealed he belonged to a Scheduled Caste (Thotti). He filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he is a Scheduled Tribe; the trial court and appellate court granted the declaration, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court examined whether such a suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the constitutional provisions governing Scheduled Castes and Tribes. It held that the President's notification under Articles 341 and 342, read with Article 366(24) and (25), is conclusive and bars civil courts from declaring caste or tribe status, rendering the suit inadmissible. The Court also rejected the respondent's claim of estoppel, noting that fraudulently obtained certificates cannot give rise to estoppel. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a civil suit for declaration of Scheduled Tribe status is maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC.
Whether the President's notification under Articles 341 and 342, read with Article 366(24) and (25), is conclusive and precludes civil court jurisdiction.
Whether the doctrine of estoppel can be invoked by the respondent based on the earlier certificate.
Whether the respondent was afforded a fair opportunity to establish his status before the cancellation of the certificate.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Section 9
Constitution of Indias. Article 341(1), s. Article 341(2), s. Article 342(1), s. Article 342(2), s. Article 366(24), s. Article 366(25)

Subjects

Scheduled TribeScheduled CastePresidential notificationCivil suitJurisdictionSection 9 CPCEstoppelFraudConstitutional law

Judgment

A THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
v.
A. GURUSAMY

FEBRUARY 17, 1997

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Articles 341(1), 342(1), 366(24) and 366(25)-Scheduled Caste/
C Scheduled Tribe-Presidential Notification-Civil suit for declaration of
Schedule Tribe Status-Maintainability of-Respondent availing the benefit of
Scheduled Caste claiming himself to be a member of 'Thotti' community-In
1971 he obtained a certifi~ate of Scheduled Tribe claiming himself to be
"Kattunaicken ''-Later he applied for a pennanent certificate, which was
D refused and earlier Certificate cancelled-He filed a Civil suit for declaration
of Scheduled Tribe status-Suit decreed and appellate Court as also High
Court confirmed the decree-Held, The authority had given an opportunity to
the respondent to establish his status and found that the Ce1tificate previously 1

obtained was wrong and illega~ and, therefore, rightly cancelled the certificate
given to him in 1971. The declaration of the President of India under A~ticles
E 341 and 342, with respect to lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
in relation to a State that a particular caste or tribe is defined in A1ticle
366(24) or A1ticle 366 (25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amend-
ment by Parliament under Altic/es 341(2) or 342(2)-By Necessary implica-
tion, the jurisdiction of the Civil coult to take cognizance of and give a
F declaration stands prohibited-Declaration issued by Coults below is uncon-
stitutional and without jurisdiction-Suit stands dismissed.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

S.9-Suit for declaration of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
I
'·
G statu~eld, by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil coult to
take co'gnizance of and give a declaration stands prohibited.

Estoppel----Respondent obtained a certificate of status of Scheduled
Tribe iii 1971-it'hen he applied for pennanent certificate, it came to the
H notice of the authority concemed that the celtificate was obtained fraudulent-
104
STATEv. A.GURUSAMY 105

ly-The certificate was refused a11d earlier ce1tificate ca11celled-Plea of estop- A
pel raised-Held, a person wlzo plays fraud and obtains a false certificate
ca1111ot plead estoppel.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1565 of
1997.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.96 of the Madras High
Court in S.A. No. 228 of 1996.

M.A. Krishnamoorthy, J.B. Ravi and V. Krishnamurthy for the Ap-
pellants. C

K. V. Mohan for the Respondent

The folloWing order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. D
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single
Judge of the Madras High Court, made on 23.2.1996 dismissing S.A. No.
228/96 on the ground that the declaration granted by the Courts below was
a concurrent finding of fact. Admittedly, when the respondent was studying E
in the school, he was described as a member of 'Thotti' community. The
presidential notification issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution
read with Article 366(24) of the Constitution notifies 'Thotti' to be a
Scheduled Caste as Item No. 67 of the Presidential notification. Sub-
sequently, in 1970, the respondent had obtained a certificate from the
Revenue Divisional Officer indicating him to be 'Kattunaicken' as Item No. F
9 of the list of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Tamil Nadu issued by
the President under Article 342(1) read with Article 366(25) of the Con-
stitution. Subsequently, he had applied for permanent certilicate. On that
basi~, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the respondent was
not a Scheduled Tribe but is a Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, the certifi- G
cate came to be cancelled. Impugning the said cancellation, the respondent
filed a civil suit for declaration that he is 'Kattunaicken', a Schedule Tribe.
That declaration was granted by the trail Court and affirmed by the
appellate Court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. Thus, this
appeal by special leave.
H
\)',.-
!

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 2 S.C.R.

A The only question is : whether the suit is maintainable? By operation
of Section 9 of CPC, a suit of civil nature cognisance of which is expressly
.. or by implication excluded, cannot be tried by any civil Court. The decla-
ration of the President of India, under Articles 341 and 342 of the Con-
stitution, with respect of lists of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in relation to a State, that a particular caste or tribe is defined in
B Article 366(24) or (25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amendment
by the Parliament under Articl~ 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution. By
necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil Court to take con-
gnizance of and give a declaration stands prohibited. The question then is
--
: whether the respondent has been given an opportunity to establish his
C case before the authorities cancelled his community certificate obtained by
him? The order of the District Collector dated 2.12.1991 clearly mentions
that an opportunity was given to the respondent and he himself had
examined him. The District Collector does not decide it like a suit. What
he does is an enquiry complying with the principles of rational justice. He
D considered his stand, namely, one of the sale deeds of 1962 in which his
status was declared as Kattunaicken but the same was disbelieved by the
District Collector before . cancellation. it is self-serving document. The
authority had, therefore, given an opportunity to the respondent to estab-
lish his status and found that the certificate previously obtained was wrong
and illegal. Accordingly, he cancelled the certificate given to the respon-
E dent on January 23, 1971. It is then contended by learned counsel for the
respondent that the guidelines had been given by the Collector in the
manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted and the synonyms are to
be taken and in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Division Officer granted
him the certificate. We find that the stand taken is not correct. The
F guidelines are only to identify the persons and not to give a declaration as
to which community comes under particular entry of the Presidential
notification. It is then contended that the respondent has been given the
right to enjoy the status right from 1971 and, therefore, the principle of
estoppel applies to him. We find that it has no force. It is a fraud played
on the Constitution. A person who plays fraud and obtains a false certifi-
G cate cannot plead estoppel. The principle of estoppcl arises only when a
lawful promise was made and acted upon to his detriment : the party
making promise is estopped to resile from the promise. In this case, the
principle of estoppel is inapplicable because there is no promise made by
the State that the State would protect perpetration of fraud defeating the
H Constitutional objective; no promise was made that his false certificate ·will
STATEv. AGURUSAMY 107

be respected and accepted by the State. On the other hand, he is liable for A
prosecution. The courts would not lend assistance to perpetrate fraud on
the Constitution and he cannot be allowed to get the benefit of the
fraudulent certificate obtained from the authorities. The declaration issued
by the courts below is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed. No B
costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.