Introduction

The case of State Of Maharashtra And Another (S) v. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone And Another (S). (2020 INSC 715) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on December 18, 2020, addresses a pivotal issue concerning the classification of the "Gond Govari" tribe within the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list in the state of Maharashtra. The appellant, the State of Maharashtra, challenged a prior judgment by the Bombay High Court which had significant implications on the socio-economic benefits accorded to communities identified as Scheduled Tribes under the Indian Constitution.

At the heart of the dispute was whether the "Gowari" caste should be recognized as part of the "Gond Govari" Scheduled Tribe as listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended by subsequent legislative acts. The High Court's decision to declare "Gond Govari" extinct prior to 1911, thereby impacting the validity of caste certificates issued to individuals under this classification, raised urgent questions about judicial overreach into classifications reserved for legislative intervention.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra and other respondents, scrutinized the High Court's authority to alter the classifications of Scheduled Tribes independently. The High Court had granted several writ petitions, asserting that the "Gond Govari" tribe had ceased to exist before 1911 and thereby invalidating caste certificates issued under this classification.

The Supreme Court upheld the principle that only the Parliament holds the authority to modify the entries in the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Orders. The Court emphasized that judicial bodies, including High Courts, lack the jurisdiction to reinterpret or amend these constitutional provisions. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions, thereby reinforcing the legislative supremacy in matters of Scheduled Tribes classification.

However, recognizing the immediate impact of the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court directed that admissions and employments undertaken based on the previously granted caste certificates remain unaffected to prevent undue hardship to individuals who had already benefited from the classification.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced pivotal Supreme Court decisions that delineate the boundaries between judicial interpretation and legislative mandate regarding Scheduled Tribes and Castes:

• B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa (1965): Established that modifications to the Scheduled Tribes Order can solely be effectuated by Parliament, not by judicial bodies.
• Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh (1965): Reinforced that courts cannot entertain claims of sub-castes or synonyms being part of a Scheduled Tribe unless explicitly mentioned in the Order.
• Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura (1990): Affirmed that courts cannot include communities into the Scheduled Tribes list based on similarity or sub-caste relations.
• State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001): Reiterated that only Parliament can amend the Scheduled Tribes Order, and courts must not overstep their jurisdiction in classifying tribes.

These precedents collectively fortify the principle that the judiciary cannot independently alter or reinterpret tribal classifications reserved under constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court's reliance on these cases underscores the sanctity of legislative intent in defining Scheduled Tribes.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning pivots on several constitutional provisions, primarily Article 342 of the Indian Constitution, which delineates the authority to specify Scheduled Tribes:

• Article 342(1): Empowers the President, in consultation with the state's Governor, to specify tribes deemed as Scheduled Tribes through public notification.
• Article 342(2): Stipulates that amendments to the Scheduled Tribes list can only be made through legislation by Parliament.

The High Court's approach to scrutinize historical census data and claims of extinction implicitly ventured into the realm of legislative prerogative. By attempting to redefine tribal classifications without parliamentary enactment, the High Court breached the constitutional boundary separating judicial function from legislative authority.

Additionally, the Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's reliance on socio-anthropological studies and historical records to declare "Gond Govari" extinct. The Court found that such determinations about Scheduled Tribes' existence or extinction are beyond judicial purview and firmly within the legislative domain.

Impact

This landmark judgment reiterates the inviolable principle that only Parliament can modify the exceptional lists of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. By affirming this, the Supreme Court preserves the structured legislative process designed to maintain the integrity of affirmative action measures.

For future cases, this decision serves as a definitive precedent that judicial bodies must refrain from reclassifying or questioning tribal statuses unless alterations are effectuated through proper legislative channels. It also underscores the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional mandates without encroaching into areas reserved for the legislature.

Moreover, the directive to preserve existing benefits ensures that individuals who had already been recognized under the High Court's judgment are not unjustly deprived of their rights, highlighting the Court's commitment to fairness and mitigating retroactive injustices.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Scheduled Tribes (ST)

Scheduled Tribes are specific indigenous communities recognized by the Constitution of India, eligible for certain affirmative action measures to address historical disadvantages. These classifications are listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and any changes to this list require an amendment act by Parliament.

Article 342 of the Indian Constitution

This article outlines the process for identifying Scheduled Tribes. Clause (1) empowers the President to specify tribes based on consultations with state Governors. Clause (2) restricts any changes to this list strictly to parliamentary action, preventing any unilateral modifications by judicial bodies or administrative authorities.

Presidential Orders

Presidential Orders under Articles 341 and 342 are legal instruments by which the President of India identifies Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively. These orders carry constitutional weight and can only be amended through legislative processes, ensuring a standardized and formal mechanism for classification.

Judicial Overreach

Judicial overreach refers to courts stepping beyond their constitutional or legal boundaries, taking on roles or making decisions reserved for other branches of government—in this case, the legislature. The High Court's attempt to redefine tribal classifications without legislative backing exemplifies such overreach.

Affine Test

An affinity test is a method used to determine the relationship or similarity between different tribes or castes. In this judgment, the High Court attempted to use such a test to validate the status of "Gowari" as part of "Gond Govari," which the Supreme Court later found impermissible without legislative authority.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in State Of Maharashtra And Another (S) v. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone And Another (S) underscores a fundamental check in the Indian constitutional framework: the delineation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. By affirming that only Parliament can modify the Scheduled Tribes list, the Court upholds the sanctity of legislative intent and prevents judicial overreach into socio-political classifications essential for affirmative action.

This decision not only clarifies the roles of different branches of government in caste and tribe classifications but also ensures stability and consistency in the application of constitutional provisions related to social justice. It reinforces the principle that while the judiciary serves as a guardian of the Constitution, it must operate within the confines of its jurisdiction, especially in matters as sensitive and impactful as the classification of Scheduled Tribes.

Moving forward, stakeholders, including state governments, tribal communities, and legal practitioners, must recognize and respect the procedural requirements for any changes to the Scheduled Tribes list. This judgment acts as a guiding beacon, ensuring that socio-constitutional mechanisms remain robust, orderly, and free from undue judicial interference.