Introduction

The case of ADIVASIS FOR SOCIAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION v. UNION OF INDIA (2023 INSC 512) addresses the contentious issue of the applicability of Central and State legislations within Scheduled Areas in India. The appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, challenged the declaration made by the President of India, under the Constitution's Fifth Schedule, which designated the entire District of Sundargarh in Orissa as a Scheduled Area. The core disputes revolve around the rights of non-Scheduled Tribes (non-ST) residents in these areas, particularly concerning their right to settle and vote, as well as the reservation of constituencies exclusively for Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, upholding the High Court of Orissa's decision. The Court clarified that Central and State laws remain applicable to Scheduled Areas unless specifically excluded or modified by a notification from the Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule. The appellant’s arguments that non-ST individuals are unlawful occupants and barred from voting were rejected. Furthermore, the Court held that not all constituencies in Scheduled Areas must be reserved for STs, as reservations must comply with Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. The judgment reinforced the supremacy of Fundamental Rights over regional legislations concerning Scheduled Areas.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references past rulings to elucidate the applicability of laws in Scheduled Areas:

• Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar (1947): Addressed the applicability of Income Tax laws in specific regions.
• Chatturam v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1947): Reinforced the principles regarding legislative applicability in excluded areas.
• Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021): Clarified the scope of the Governor's powers under the Fifth Schedule, emphasizing that the Governor cannot enact new laws but can modify the applicability of existing ones.
• Jatindra v. Province of Bihar (1949): Established that the Governor holds legislative power to modify or repeal existing laws in Scheduled Areas through notifications.
• Ram Kirpal Bhagat v. State of Bihar (1969): Affirmed the Governor's discretion in framing regulations for peace and governance in Scheduled Areas.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, differentiating it from the now-repealed Government of India Act, 1935. Key points include:

• Applicability of Laws: Central and State laws are inherently applicable to Scheduled Areas unless explicitly excluded or altered by the Governor’s notification.
• Governor’s Authority: The Governor's power under the Fifth Schedule is limited to dictating the applicability of existing laws, not creating new legislation.
• Fundamental Rights Supremacy: Any regulation or modification must comply with the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, ensuring that Governor's directives do not override these rights.
• Voting Rights: The Representation of the People Act, 1950, applies to Scheduled Areas, ensuring that all eligible residents, irrespective of their tribal status, retain the right to vote.
• Reservation of Constituencies: Reservations must adhere to constitutional provisions (Articles 330 and 332) and cannot be blanketly applied to all constituencies within Scheduled Areas.

Impact

This landmark judgment has several far-reaching implications:

• Legal Clarity: It provides clear guidelines on the extent of the Governor's powers in Scheduled Areas, preventing the arbitrary exclusion of non-ST individuals from legal and democratic processes.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: Reinforces the primacy of Fundamental Rights, ensuring that regional legislations do not infringe upon basic constitutional guarantees.
• Electoral Inclusivity: Upholds the rights of non-ST residents to participate in elections, promoting a more inclusive democratic process within Scheduled Areas.
• Reservation Policies: Sets boundaries on reservation practices, ensuring they are constitutionally compliant and not overly restrictive.
• Future Litigation: Acts as a precedent for similar cases, guiding future judicial interpretations of the Fifth Schedule and related constitutional provisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in ADIVASIS FOR SOCIAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION v. UNION OF INDIA reaffirms the balanced approach required in administering Scheduled Areas. While the Fifth Schedule empowers the Governor to tailor the applicability of laws to protect tribal interests, this power is not absolute and must align with the overarching framework of Fundamental Rights. The decision ensures that non-ST residents retain their constitutional rights, including the right to vote, and that reservation policies remain within constitutional boundaries. This ruling fortifies the legal safeguards for both tribal and non-tribal populations within Scheduled Areas, promoting harmony and inclusivity in governance.