- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of T.N And Others v. A. Gurusamy .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was originally recorded in school as belonging to the “Thotti” community, which is listed as Item 67 in the Presidential Notification for Scheduled Castes in Tamil Nadu under Article 341(1) of the Constitution. In 1970, however, he obtained a community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer declaring him to be “Kattunaicken,” Item 9 in the Presidential list of Scheduled Tribes issued under Article 342(1). When he later sought a permanent community certificate, the District Collector conducted an enquiry, concluded that the earlier certificate was incorrect, and cancelled it on 2-12-1991 after granting the respondent an opportunity to be heard.
Challenging the cancellation, the respondent filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he is a member of the Scheduled Tribe “Kattunaicken.” The trial court granted the declaration, the first appellate court affirmed, and the Madras High Court dismissed a second appeal (SA No. 228 of 1996) on 23-2-1996, treating the concurrent findings as final. The State (appellant) obtained special leave, leading to the present Supreme Court appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration that a person belongs to a particular Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in light of Articles 341, 342, and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the cancellation of the respondent’s community certificate violated principles of natural justice.
- Whether the respondent could invoke the doctrine of estoppel to rely on the 1970 certificate despite its cancellation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Articles 341(1) and 342(1) render the Presidential lists of Scheduled Castes and Tribes conclusive; only Parliament can amend them under clauses (2) of those articles. Consequently, civil courts are barred from declaring a different status.
- Section 9 CPC excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters expressly or impliedly barred, which includes caste/tribe status determinations.
- The District Collector afforded the respondent an adequate opportunity to present his case, satisfying natural-justice requirements.
- The respondent obtained the 1970 certificate by fraud; therefore, estoppel cannot be invoked to uphold a fraudulent benefit.
Respondent's Arguments
- The guidelines issued by the Collector regarding enquiry procedure and recognition of synonymous tribal names justified issuance of the 1970 certificate declaring him “Kattunaicken.”
- He had enjoyed Scheduled-Tribe status since 1971; the State should be estopped from questioning it after such a long period.
- The 1962 sale deed describing him as “Kattunaicken” corroborated his tribal identity.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court focused on the maintainability of the respondent’s suit. It held that:
- The Presidential Notifications under Articles 341 and 342 establish conclusively which communities qualify as Scheduled Castes or Tribes. Parliament alone may alter these lists; civil courts cannot.
- Section 9 CPC bars civil-court cognizance where jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly excluded. Given the constitutional scheme, civil courts lack authority to declare caste or tribe status.
- The District Collector’s enquiry met the requirements of natural justice: the respondent was heard personally, and his documentary evidence—including the 1962 sale deed—was considered but reasonably disbelieved as self-serving.
- The Collector’s guidelines were merely identification aids; they did not confer power to classify communities outside the constitutional lists.
- The respondent’s reliance on estoppel failed because the 1970 certificate was obtained through “fraud on the Constitution.” Estoppel cannot validate an illegality, nor can courts assist in perpetuating fraudulent claims to Scheduled-Tribe benefits.
Because the lower courts lacked jurisdiction, their declarations were pronounced “unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.”
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; SUIT DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
Immediate Effect: The respondent’s declaration as a Scheduled Tribe stands annulled, and the cancellation of his certificate by the District Collector is upheld.
Broader Implications: The decision reaffirms that determinations of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status lie exclusively within the constitutional and statutory framework, not within the jurisdiction of civil courts, and underscores that fraudulent procurement of caste/tribe certificates will not be protected by estoppel.
Order
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Single Judge of the Madras High Court, made on 23-2-1996 dismissing SA No. 228 of 1996 on the ground that the declaration granted by the courts below was a concurrent finding of fact. Admittedly, when the respondent was studying in the school, he was described as a member of “Thotti” community. The Presidential Notification issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution read with Article 366(24) of the Constitution notifies “Thotti” to be a Scheduled Caste as Item No. 67 of the Presidential Notification. Subsequently, in 1970, the respondent had obtained a certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating him to be “Kattunaicken” as Item No. 9 of the list of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Tamil Nadu issued by the President under Article 342(1) read with Article 366(25) of the Constitution. Subsequently, he had applied for permanent certificate. On that basis, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the respondent was not a Scheduled Tribe but is a Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, the certificate came to be cancelled. Impugning the said cancellation, the respondent filed a civil suit for declaration that he is “Kattunaicken”, a Scheduled Tribe. That declaration was granted by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The only question is whether the suit is maintainable. By operation of Section 9 of CPC, a suit of civil nature cognizance of which is expressly or by implication excluded, cannot be tried by any civil court. The declaration of the President of India, under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, with respect of lists of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State, that a particular caste or tribe as defined in Article 366(24) or (25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amendment by Parliament under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution. By necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of and give a declaration stands prohibited. The question then is whether the respondent has been given an opportunity to establish his case before the authorities cancelled his community certificate obtained by him? The order of the District Collector dated 2-12-1991 clearly mentions that an opportunity was given to the respondent and he himself had examined him. The District Collector does not decide it like a suit. What he does is an enquiry complying with the principles of rational (sic natural) justice. He considered his stand, namely, one of the sale deeds of 1962 in which his status was declared as Kattunaicken but the same was disbelieved by the District Collector before cancellation. It is a self-serving document. The authority had, therefore, given an opportunity to the respondent to establish his status and found that the certificate previously obtained was wrong and illegal. Accordingly, he cancelled the certificate given to the respondent on 23-1-1971. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the guidelines had been given by the Collector in the manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted and the synonyms are to be taken and in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Division Officer granted him the certificate. We find that the stand taken is not correct. The guidelines are only to identify the persons and not to give a declaration as to which community comes under a particular entry of the Presidential Notification. It is then contended that the respondent has been given the right to enjoy the status right from 1971 and, therefore, the principle of estoppel applies to him. We find that it has no force. It is a fraud played on the Constitution. A person who plays fraud and obtains a false certificate cannot plead estoppel. The principle of estoppel arises only when a lawful promise was made and acted upon to his detriment; the party making promise is estopped to resile from the promise. In this case, the principle of estoppel is inapplicable because there is no promise made by the State that the State would protect perpetration of fraud defeating the constitutional objective; no promise was made that his false certificate will be respected and accepted by the State. On the other hand, he is liable for prosecution. The courts would not lend assistance to perpetrate fraud on the Constitution and he cannot be allowed to get the benefit of the fraudulent certificate obtained from the authorities. The declaration issued by the courts below is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed. No costs.
Alert