New Delhi: The Manipur High Court has issued an order to remove a paragraph from a March 2023 ruling that had urged the state to consider adding the Meitei community to the Scheduled Tribe list, citing a conflict with the stance of the Supreme Court’s Constitution bench.
This directive from March 27, 2023, believed to have contributed to ethnic tensions resulting in over 200 fatalities, was overturned by Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu, sitting as a single judge bench, during a review petition hearing on Wednesday.
The paragraph in question from last year’s judgment, which instructed the state to accelerate the consideration of including the Meitei community, was deemed for deletion. This paragraph had stated that the state government “shall consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes list, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks” from the date of receiving the order.
Justice Gaiphulshillu’s ruling on February 21 stressed the importance of removing this directive, citing the prescribed procedure for amending the Scheduled Tribe list by the Government of India. He stated, “Accordingly, the direction given at para no. 17(iii) needs to be deleted and is ordered accordingly for deletion of the para no. 17(iii) of the judgment and order dated March 27, 2023…”.
The necessity to adhere to the constitutional protocol outlined in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ 2013-14 report was highlighted by the court, emphasizing alignment with the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretation. The high court’s 19-page verdict stated, “…I am satisfied and of the view that the direction given at Para no. 17(iii) of the single judge dated March 27, 2023…which is impugned herein needs to be reviewed, as the direction given at para no. 17(iii) of the single judge is against the observation made in the constitution bench of the Supreme Court.”
Also Read: INDIA alliance’s Delhi seat-sharing deal: AAP to contest 4 seats, Congress 3
In its detailed 19-page verdict, the high court underscored the legislative constraints on judicial intervention regarding Scheduled Tribe classifications, as delineated by a constitution bench ruling in November 2000.
The verdict quoted the Supreme Court’s Constitution bench from November 2000, stating, “Courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the Entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 and 342 particularly so when in Clause (2) of the said Article, it is expressly stated that said orders cannot be amended or varied except by law made by Parliament.”
The constitution bench had clarified that courts should refrain from exceeding their jurisdiction in determining such classifications.
Following the outbreak of violence after the March 27 order, a series of petitions, including challenges to the high court directive, were brought before the Supreme Court.
What had Supreme Court said on Manipur HC’s order
On May 17 of the same year, the apex court criticized the high court’s directive as “obnoxious” and considered staying the order due to perceived inaccuracies.
A bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud remarked, “I will tell you (lawyers) one thing that the high court order was incorrect… I think we have to stay the order of the high court. The high court order is absolutely wrong.” The apex court bench clarified that it would not address legal issues stemming from the Manipur High Court’s decision on granting reservation to the majority Meiteis, as challenges against the order were pending before a larger division bench there.
During the legal discussions, the Supreme Court refrained from delving into the fundamental legal aspects arising from the Manipur High Court’s decision, as challenges were awaiting review by a larger division bench.
The court encouraged tribal participation, particularly from Kukis, in the ongoing legal proceedings concerning the intra-court appeals.
The violent unrest in Manipur, sparked by dissent over the Meitei community’s aspirations for Scheduled Tribe status, underscores the intricate demographic composition of the region.
Meiteis constitute approximately 53 percent of Manipur’s population and predominantly inhabit the Imphal Valley, while tribals, including Nagas and Kukis, make up 40 percent and primarily reside in the hill districts.
(With Agency Inputs)
