Manipur High Court: In a review petition, seeking review of the Court’s direction in Mutum Churamani Meetei v. State of Manipur, 2023 SCC OnLine Mani 156, as to consider the inclusion of the Meitei/ Meetei Community in the Scheduled Tribe list, expeditiously, Golmei Gaiphulshillu, J. ordered for deletion of the said direction.
The Meitei community had their tribal status before 21-09-1949, i.e., before signing the Merger Agreement with the Union of India (‘UOI’). However, while merging Manipur with the UOI, the Meitei Community of Manipur had lost their status and identity of being tribals. A petition was filed before the Court to maintain their status of “tribe among tribes of Manipur” and include the Community in the Schedule Tribe list of Constitution of India (‘Constitution’). Thus, the members of the Meitei Tribe Union approached the Court to direct the State to recommend the Government of India to include the Meitei community as Schedule Tribe in the Constitution.
The Court vide order dated 27-03-2023, said that the issue of inclusion of Meitei Community in the list of Schedule Tribes of the Constitution was pending for nearly ten years and above, and no satisfactory explanation was given by the State for not submitting the recommendation for the last 10 years. Therefore, the Court directed the State to consider the inclusion of the Meitei Community in the Scheduled Tribe list, expeditiously, preferably within a period four weeks from the date of order.
The impugned direction under Para No. 17(iii) read as-
“The first respondent shall consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list, expeditiously, preferably within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in terms of the averments set out in the writ petition and in the line of the order passed in WP(C) No. 4281 of 2002 dated 26.05.2003 by the Gauhati High Court.”
On State’s plea, the Court extended the time limit to one year for consideration of the Single Judge’s direction made vide order dated 27-03-2023.
Subsequently, the Chairman, Hill Area Committee (HAC) of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, challenged the said decision dated 27-03-2023 before the Supreme Court. The Court left it open to the parties who are aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge to make appropriate submissions before the Division Bench of the Court since an appeal was pending there.
The Court perused Article 342 of the Constitution and said that the recommendation is institutional in nature, but not an individual recommendation.
The Court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4, wherein it was observed that the “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 Article 341 and 342 particularly so when in Clause (2) of the said Article, it is expressly stated that said orders cannot be amended or varied except by law made by Parliament.”
The Court also perused the Clause (g) of the Annual Report, 2013- 14 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, whereby the procedure for inclusion or exclusion from, the list of Scheduled Tribes was laid.
On perusal of the procedure laid down by the Government of India for inclusion in or exclusion from the list of Scheduled Tribe issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India and Supreme Court’s observation in Milind (supra), the Court said that the impugned direction given in Para No. 17(iii) of order dated 27-03-2023 needs to be reviewed. The Court also said that the said directions were against the Supreme Court’s observation Milind (supra).
Hence, the Court held that the impugned directions need to be deleted and ordered for deletion of Para No. 17(iii) of the order dated 27-03-2023.
[Mutum Churamani Meetei v. State of Manipur, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 38, Decided on: 21-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate M. Hemchandra, Senior Advocate N. Jotendro, Advocate Ajoy Pebam, Advocate M. Rendy
For the respondent: Special State Counsel M. Rarry, DSGI Kh. Samarjit
Buy Constitution of India HERE
