Affirming the Inviolability of Scheduled Tribe Declarations: Protecting Constitutional Rights against Unilateral Administrative Action

Introduction

The case of SMTI.NAZREEN BANU AND ANR v. THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. before the Calcutta High Court presents an urgent writ petition concerning the issuance of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate. The petitioners, comprising a mother (petitioner no.1) and her daughter (petitioner no.2), challenge the administrative decision that rejected the daughter’s application for an ST certificate. The petitioner no.2, who is preparing for the NEET entrance examination as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, is caught in a conflict between an earlier issued declaration endorsing her tribal status and a later unilateral communication that sought to withdraw that recommendation. At the heart of the case is the issue of whether the administrative body, by withdrawing an earlier favorable declaration without affording a hearing, has violated due process and the constitutional rights of the Scheduled Tribe community.

Summary of the Judgment

The judgment, delivered by Justice Aniruddha Roy on February 27, 2025, sets aside the decision of the jurisdictional Tehsildar that refused to grant the Scheduled Tribe certificate to petitioner no.2. The court critically examined the sequence of administrative actions: an application was submitted in the correct prescribed format and supported by a declaration from the appropriate tribal authorities. Despite this, a subsequent order by the Chairman of the Tribal Council on December 21, 2024, unilaterally withdrew the recommendation on the basis that the petitioner’s father was non-tribal and that she was allegedly brought up within a forward-class environment.

The High Court held that once the administrative authorities have issued the declaration in the prescribed format, it creates a protected constitutional right that cannot be arbitrarily retracted without due process. The judgment emphasizes that such a declaration, having been issued in conformity with the prescribed legal procedure, should be treated as conclusive evidence of eligibility. Consequently, the court quashed the Tehsildar’s orders dated February 26, 2025 (corrected on February 27, 2025) and directed the respondent to issue the ST certificate within 24 working hours, but no later than the deadline for filing the NEET application.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment notably refers to the Supreme Court decision in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State Of Gujarat (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 400. In that case, the Court underscored that the determination of an individual's caste or tribal affiliation, especially in instances of inter-caste or mixed community births, must be grounded in all material facts of the case. Although the Naika decision centered on the wrongful revocation of certain benefits purely on the basis of parental ethnicity, the principles therein serve to reinforce that administrative bodies should not disregard established facts or deviate from due process.

In the present case, the respondent relied on Naika as a reference point to justify that discontinuing the favorable declaration without considering complete evidence might be permissible. However, the High Court clarified that once a declaration is issued in the prescribed manner, it is deemed to be supported by all necessary fact-finding measures, and the law presumes its correctness. Thus, the decision in Naika could not be analogously applied here where the core issue pertained to the unilateral withdrawal of a declaration that had already conferred a constitutional entitlement.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning rests on several core legal concepts, chief among them being the constitutional protection afforded to Scheduled Tribes. Key articles of the Constitution (Articles 15(4), 16(4), 19(5), 23, 34, 275(1), 330, 332, 338, 342, and provisions relating to the Fifth Schedule) were invoked to stress that recognition as a Scheduled Tribe is not merely administrative but a fundamental constitutional right.

The court noted that the ST certificate, once duly issued by the designated tribal authorities and recorded in the prescribed format (as on page 51 of the petition), should be regarded as conclusive evidence of tribal affiliation. The subsequent executive action—where the recommendation was unilaterally withdrawn without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard—was held to be “bad in law” and in violation of the principles of natural justice. By emphasizing the presumption that the administrative authorities acted correctly when issuing the declaration, the court reinforced that a retroactive withdrawal of that declaration, without any contestation or contrary evidence presented by the respondent, is both illegal and unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the court examined the procedural fairness by contrasting the two competing submissions. While the respondents argued that multiple factors and the familial background (specifically, having a non-tribal father) should impugn the eligibility, the petitioner’s counsel countered that the declaration issued by the relevant authorities was all-encompassing and had not been contested until the withdrawal. The rejection of the certificate based solely on the father's identity and the alleged upbringing in a forward-class milieu was found to be arbitrary and unjust.

Impact on Future Cases and Relevant Area of Law

This judgment is poised to have significant repercussions on administrative and constitutional law, particularly in the area of tribal rights. The court’s categorical statement that a declaration, once issued by the appropriate authorities, creates a protected legal entitlement cannot be ignored in future cases. This decision serves as a robust safeguard against arbitrary administrative actions that might otherwise erode the rights of Scheduled Tribes.

Administratively, the ruling emphasizes that state authorities must adhere strictly to the prescribed processes and are bound by the initial declarations made by competent officials. Future applicants for ST certificates can be more confident that once an appropriate and procedural declaration is made, it cannot be retracted unilaterally without a fair hearing. In effect, the judgment sets a high threshold for any subsequent challenge or review of such declarations, thereby strengthening the legal position of individuals from the Scheduled Tribe communities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts and terminologies in this judgment warrant simplification for broader understanding:

• Prescribed Format: This refers to the specific manner or form in which an application—or in this case, the declaration for an ST certificate—must be submitted, as mandated by law. Failure to adhere to this format typically renders the application procedurally invalid.
• Due Process of Law: A fundamental principle that ensures fair and equitable treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a safeguard against arbitrary denial of rights.
• Unilateral Administrative Action: This involves a decision taken solely by an administrative authority without consulting the affected party or providing an opportunity for response, often leading to violations of fairness and natural justice.
• Declaration Presumption: The legal principle that once a declaration is validly issued by an appropriate authority, it is presumed to be correct and binding, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

In summary, the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in this matter marks a significant step in upholding the constitutional rights of Scheduled Tribes. By setting aside the unilateral withdrawal of the ST certificate recommendation and mandating that state authorities adhere to due process, the judgment reinforces that administrative decisions must be made in accordance with established legal procedures and cannot be arbitrarily reversed. The decision not only navigates the immediate urgency of enabling petitioner no.2 to participate in her scheduled examination but also establishes a long-lasting precedent to protect tribal identity and rights. This case therefore stands as a bulwark against administrative overreach and underscores the necessity of fairness and procedural integrity in the recognition and protection of constitutional rights.