Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Ismile Guru v. State Of Orissa Opposite Parties.

Orissa High Court
Feb 14, 1995
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
Smart Summary (Beta)

Judicial Opinion Summary — Pasayat, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged an order (identified in the petition as dated 19-12-1994 and referred to elsewhere in the opinion as dated 10-12-1994) passed by the Tahasildar, Parlakhemundi (Annexure 8 to the writ application) cancelling a previously issued caste certificate which had described the petitioner as belonging to the Sahara sub-tribe and being a member of a Scheduled Tribe for the purposes of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 ("the Order"). The petitioner alleged that the Tahasildar acted illegally and/or beyond jurisdiction by conducting an enquiry behind his back and arriving at the cancelling conclusion.

Relevant facts presented by the petitioner in the petition include: the petitioner and his father belonged to the Sahara caste; the petitioner had worked in government service since 1962 and had received caste certificates previously, including a certificate issued on 17-6-1980 by an MLA (Garasango Savara) and another certificate issued on 15-3-1994 by the then Tahasildar certifying him as a Sahara Christian belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. Certificates had also been issued in favour of the petitioner's brother and daughter by former MLAs. Following a tour note of the Sub-Collector dated 24-11-1994, the Tahasildar issued a show-cause notice and conducted enquiries on 8-12-1994, 15-12-1994 and 16-12-1994, recording statements of several witnesses. The Tahasildar ultimately cancelled the petitioner's caste certificate by the impugned order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Tahasildar was correct in concluding that the petitioner does not belong to the Sahara sub-tribe and therefore is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe for the purposes of the Order.
  2. Whether the Tahasildar acted illegally or beyond jurisdiction by conducting the enquiry "behind the petitioner's back" and cancelling a previously issued caste certificate.
  3. Whether the enquiry procedure adopted (including the taking of witness statements in the petitioner's absence and alleged lack of opportunity to cross-examine) satisfied the legal requirements for verification/cancellation of social status (caste) certificates under the Rules and relevant jurisprudence.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner and his father belong to the Sahara caste and earlier caste certificates had been issued accepting that status (including certificates issued by sitting/former MLAs and by a Tahasildar on 15-3-1994).
  • The Tahasildar purportedly conducted an enquiry without proper notice and "behind his back" and therefore acted illegally or beyond jurisdiction in cancelling the certificate.
  • The petitioner asserted he was not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses examined on 8-12-1994, 15-12-1994 and 16-12-1994, and therefore the Tahasildar should not have relied on those statements without affording that opportunity.

Tahasildar / State's Arguments (as reflected in the record and counter-affidavit)

  • The Tahasildar concluded that the petitioner's mother was a Pana Christian who was born, brought up and maintained in the Pana Christian community and therefore did not belong to the Sahara community; on that basis the petitioner could not claim tribal status because he was born to and lived in a Pana Christian environment.
  • Evidence was placed on record (witness statements and factual observations such as burial practices) to show that the petitioner's mother and the petitioner had social associations with the Pana Christian community, and the petitioner himself married Pana Christian women, which the Tahasildar considered showing lack of acceptance by the tribal society.
  • The Tahasildar held that entries in the record-of-rights and earlier certificates issued to the petitioner or his relatives were of no consequence in determining the genuineness of the claim under the Rules.
  • It was contended that the enquiry is administrative rather than a strict judicial proceeding, and therefore the alleged absence of opportunity for cross-examination did not invalidate reliance on witness statements.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94 The desirability of a Screening Committee and streamlining the procedure for issuance of social status (caste) certificates; the case indicates fifteen requirements for such matters. The court directed that the Tahasildar should re-examine the matter keeping in view the guidelines indicated by the Supreme Court in this case and ordered the State to forthwith take steps as directed by the apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil.
N.E. Hero v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1840 Examines whether a strict rule of endogamy of a tribe has been deviated from and whether custom sanctions such deviation; discusses the role of endogamy and social change in determining tribal identity. The court relied on the discussion in this case to note that questions of endogamy, social change, and whether tribal customs continue to mark social identity are relevant to determining tribal membership; these considerations were required to be borne in mind by the Tahasildar on re-examination.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by situating the issue within constitutional obligations: the Preamble and the need to secure social and economic justice and to protect the dignity and development of Scheduled Tribes, who historically remain apart from the mainstream and require protective measures.

The court observed the adverse consequences of improperly issued or cancelled social status (caste) certificates — namely that wrong admissions or appointments deprive genuine Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidates of constitutionally mandated benefits. In that context the court cited Kumari Madhuri Patil (AIR 1995 SC 94) emphasising the need for a Screening Committee and streamlined procedure for issuance of social status certificates, including the fifteen requirements indicated in that case.

The court noted that the Tahasildar's conclusions rested significantly on findings that the petitioner's mother was a Pana Christian and that the petitioner had social relations and marriages within the Pana Christian community. The Tahasildar treated those facts as showing the petitioner was not accepted by the tribal society and therefore was not a member of the Sahara tribe. The Tahasildar also discounted the record-of-rights entry and earlier certificates.

Relying on N.E. Hero (AIR 1972 SC 1840) the court highlighted that questions of endogamy and the impact of social change on tribal identity are relevant. The court reproduced (by reference) materials describing tribes as collections of families with shared names, dialects and territory and stated that endogamy is an essential feature though inter-tribal and other marriages can alter that character over time. The court emphasised that tribal customs, practices and social organisation may undergo change due to outside influences (Hinduism, Christianity, education, urbanisation, etc.), and that such changes affect assessments of membership.

The court found that the Tahasildar had not properly considered these broader aspects and the guidelines indicated by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil. Specifically, the court concluded that the Tahasildar's enquiry did not adequately apply the legal principles and safeguards identified by the apex Court and that the petitioner should be allowed to place material on the record and, if desired, to cross-examine the witnesses already examined.

Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned order (the opinion records both the impugned order as dated 19-12-1994 in the petition and later refers to an impugned order dated 10-12-1994 vide Annexure-8) and remitted the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration in accordance with the apex Court's guidelines and with proper opportunity afforded to the petitioner.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ application was allowed to the extent indicated in the opinion: the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's caste certificate was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court (Kumari Madhuri Patil). The petitioner was to be given opportunity to place materials on record and to cross-examine witnesses already examined. The court directed the State to take steps forthwith as directed by the apex Court. The opinion records: "No costs."

Implications:

  • The direct immediate effect is that the impugned cancellation is set aside and the Tahasildar must re-conduct the enquiry following the Supreme Court's procedural guidelines; the petitioner gains the opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.
  • The court emphasised adherence to the procedural safeguards and standards articulated by the apex Court (Kumari Madhuri Patil) when verifying or cancelling social status certificates, but the opinion does not state that it is setting any novel precedent beyond applying those acknowledged authorities and remitting for fresh consideration.

Order recorded in the opinion: D.M. Patnaik agreed with the judgment and the court ordered accordingly.

Show all summary ...

Pasayat, J.:— Petitioner challenges correctness of order dated 19-12-1994 (Annexure 8 to the writ application) passed by the Tahaslidar, Parlakhemundi, wherein he has concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Sahara sub-tribe, and as such does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. A caste certificate issued to him earlier in Misc. Case No. 134 of 1983 under the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules, 1980 (in short, the ‘Rules’) was held to be inoperative. According to the petitioner, the Tahasildar acted illegally and/or beyond his jurisdiction in conducting an enquiry behind his back, and coming to the aforesaid conclusion about his caste.

2. A brief reference to the factual position, as presented by the petitioner, is necessary for testing correctness of the action taken by the Tahasildar.

In the year 1962 the petitioner joined as a Block Level Worker and received promotions from time to time and at the relevant point of time was working as Block Development Officer. Mohhana Block in the district of Gajapati. Petitioner as well as his father belong to the caste ‘Sahara’. He applied for caste certificate which was issued to him by accepting that he is a Sahara by caste and belongs to Scheduled Tribe, as specified under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (in short, the ‘Order’). Before the Rules came into operation, Members of the Legislative Assembly were competent to issue caste certificates relating to caste of a particular person and accordingly, the then Member of Legislative Assembly representing Ramgiri Assembly Constituency, i.e, Garasango Savara had issued a caste certificate on 17-6-1980 indicating that the petitioner belonged to Sahara sub-caste. It is not in dispute that Sahara sub-caste is recongnised as Scheduled Tribe as per the Order, so far as Orissa is concerned. Earlier also similar certificate was issued by the former M.L.A Chakradhar Paik in favour of the petitioner's brother, describing him as Saura which is synonymous for Sahara. One Haladhar Karji, ex MLA representing Ramgiri Assembly Constituency had also issued certificate in favour of petitioner's daughter that she belongs to Sahara Tribe. On 15-3-1994, the then Tahasildar, Parlakhamundi issued a certificate to the petitioner certifying that he is a Sahara Christian and belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner received a notice from the Tahasildar requiring him to show cause as to why the certificate issued to him should not be cancelled. The same action was taken purportedly on the basis of tour note of the Sub-Collector, Parlakhemundi dated 24-11-1994 communicated to the Tahasildar asking him to submit a report about genuineness of the certificate issued to the petitioner. Petitioner was directed to appear on 8-12-1994. He asked for time as he was required to be present elsewhere on official work. Several persons were directed to appear as witnesses, some of whom appeared and their statements were recorded. However, on the said date the statement of the petitioner was recorded, and making use of the statements recorded on 8-12-1994, 15-12-1994 and 16-12-1994 the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the impugned order dated 19-12-1994.

3. The conclusions of the Tahasildar were to the effect that the petitioner's father had married a non-tribal woman. According to him, under the Rules, the requirement is that where a person claims to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it should be verified that the person and his parents actually belong to the community claimed. Since the mother of the petitioner was a Pana Christian, and she was born, brought up and maintained in Pana Christian Community, she did not belong to Sahara community. Since the petitioner was born from the womb of a Pana Christian and lived in a Pana Christian community, and making relations in Pana Christian community, he cannot claim to belong to Scheduled Tribe. Reliance was placed on statements of persons which showed that the petitioner's mother was a Pana Charstian. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that when she died her body was taken to the burial ground in a coffin while the custom of tribals is to carry deadbody in a ‘Kokei’. Petitioner also admitted that he first married a Pana Christian and after her death he again married a Pana Christian woman. This, according to the Tahasildar, was sufficient to show that he was not accepted by the tribal society. Mention in the record-of-rights that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe was held to be of no consequence. Similarly it was held that the certificates issued from time to time either to the petitioner or his relatives do not throw any light on the controversy. In the counter-affidavit filed, the abovementioned aspects were highlighted. It is accepted that certain witnesses were examined on 15-12-1994 and 16-12-1994, on which dates there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he had no notice of the adjournment. It is asserted that though the petitioner could have cross-examined the witnesses, he could not do so, and therefore, the Tahasildar was justified in relying on the evidence of the witnesses examined in coming to the conclusions we assailed. So far as cross-examination aspect is concerned, it is stated that the enquiry is not strictly in the sense of a judicial proceeding, but it is more in administrative nature and, therefore, absence of an opportunity being given does not affect validity of the order.

4. The Preamble to the Constitution promises to secure to every citizen social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity assuring the dignity of the individual. The Scheduled Tribes are inhabitants of intractable terrain regions of the country, kept away from the main stream of national life and with their traditional (sic) and customary beliefs and prctices, they are largely governed by their own customary Code of Conduct regulated from time to time with their own rich cultural heritage and ethos. Scheduled Tribes are a nomadic class of citizens whose habitals are generally hilly regions or forests, and this results in their staying away from the main stream of the national life. The Constitution, therefore, enjoins to provide facilities and opportunities for development of their economic and educational standards. Though the social status certificates or caste certificates as they are generally called provide the basis for admission into educational institutions, and for getting benefits on reservations like entry into service earmarked for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, admission wrongly gained or appointments wrongly obtained on the basis of such certificates have the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes, Tribes or other backward candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are denied of the benefits for want of caste certificates. The Supreme Court took note of these aspects and in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94, has stressed upon the desirability of a Screening Committee and for streamlining the procedure for issuance of a social status certificate. In the said case fifteen requirements have been indicated.

5. As was observed by the Supreme Court in N.E Hero v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1840, the moot question that has to be enquired into is whether the strict rule of endogamy of the Munda tribe has been deviated from and whether custom has sanctioned such deviation. With reference to the illustrious Book “Races and Cultures of India” by D.N Mazumdar, it was observed that the definition is found in the current literature on the subject as given in the Imperial Gazetter. A tribe is a collection of families bearing a common name, speaking a common diale, occupying or professing to occupy a common territory and is not usually endogamous though originally it might have been so. Endogamy is an essential feature of the tribe though inter-tribal marriages are breaking the limits of the endogamy. It was further stated in the Book that the importance of the blood bond or the inship group is forced to the background, the communal economy of the clan is superseded by individual desire for gain and property, money assumes an importance it seldom had before, and the ties of reciprocity and mutuality of obligation are re-oriented to suit new conditions. Tribal customs and practices which established social life lose their value and the choice of leader and of mate is guided by different considerations. It was further observed that the Munda tribe cannot be said to be immune from the above process of change in their social organisation. Changes in their belief, customs, traditions and practices have taken place under the influence of Hinduism, and Christianity, and on account of the impact of Western education, urbanisation, industrialisation and improved means of communication. The sense of individualism and lack of love for the traditional Code of Conduct and social taboos are stated to be apparent among the emerging urban-industrial oriented adivasi communities. It was indicated that the endogamy of the tribe is not sacred today, with the result that many marriages have taken place between the Hos and other tribes. Liasion between Diku men and Ho girls is increasing.

6. It has to be borne in mind that the broad and recognised features of the hierarchical social structure prevalent amongst the Hindus in that what might have been the origin of the Hindu castes and tribes in ancient times, gradually status came to be based on birth alone. A person who belonged by birth to a depressed caste or tribe would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to attain the status of a higher caste amongst the Hindus by virtue of his volition, education, culture and status.

7. Article 342(1) of the Constitution empowers the President to specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State or Union Territory as the case may be. In parts 1 to 12 of the schedule to the Order are specified the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within the tribes or tribal communities, who are to be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes. The term ‘tribal community’ has a wider connotation than the expression ‘tribes’. A person who, according to the strict custom of a tribe, cannot be regarded as a member of that tribe may wall be regarded as a member of that tribal community.

8. The aforesaid aspects have not been considered by the Tahasildar. In the fitness of things, therefore, he should re-examine the matter keeping in view the guidelines indicated by the apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra). The State is directed to forthwith take steps as directed by the apex Court in the said case. The petitioner shall be granted opportunity to place materials on record in support of his stance and if he so desires may cross-examine the witnesses already examined. The impugned order dated 10-12-1994 vide Annexure-8 is quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration as directed above.

The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

D.M Patnaik.:— 9. I agree.

Order accordingly.