Jurisdiction of Autonomous District Courts: Supreme Court Clarifies Trial of Criminal Cases in Tribal Areas

The case of The State of Meghalaya vs. Melvin Sohlangpiaw addresses the jurisdiction of District Council Courts in tribal areas under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court ruled that the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Court has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases where both the victim and accused belong to the same Scheduled Tribe.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Melvin Sohlangpiaw, a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe, was accused of offenses under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) before the Sessions Judge, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District. The case originated from an incident on March 26, 2017, when a dead body was found on the Nondein river bank. The police investigation traced the last phone calls made by the deceased to the respondent, leading to his arrest. During the investigation, he voluntarily led the police to the burial site of the deceased.

On August 31, 2017, a chargesheet was filed against the respondent, and on November 8, 2017, the case was committed to trial before the Sessions Judge, Nongstoin. However, the accused filed a petition requesting the transfer of the case to the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Court, arguing that as both the accused and the victim belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, the case fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Council Court.

The Meghalaya High Court accepted the respondent’s plea and transferred the case to the District Council Court. The State of Meghalaya then challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner (State of Meghalaya)

The state argued that under Paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule, only civil cases between tribal members fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of District Council Courts.
It contended that criminal cases are prosecuted by the State and not by individuals, and therefore, such cases do not fall under the purview of paragraph 4.
The prosecution pointed out that the complainant in the case was a police officer acting in his official capacity and not a party to the case in a personal capacity.
It further emphasized that cases involving serious offenses such as murder should be tried in courts established under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), rather than the District Council Courts.

Arguments of the Respondent (Melvin Sohlangpiaw)

The defense argued that under Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Sixth Schedule, all disputes involving Scheduled Tribe members in autonomous districts must be adjudicated by the District Council Courts.
The respondent highlighted a notification issued by the Governor of Meghalaya on February 7, 2017, which conferred jurisdiction upon the District Council Court to try offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of five years or more.
He also relied on the judgment in Longsan Khongngain v. State of Meghalaya (2012), where the Meghalaya High Court held that District Council Courts have jurisdiction over criminal cases where both parties belong to the same Scheduled Tribe.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

A bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy upheld the High Court’s order, confirming that the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try the case. The Court made the following key observations:

“The term ‘cases’ under paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule includes criminal cases. The distinction between civil and criminal matters is not absolute when it comes to tribal administration of justice.”

The Court ruled that the CrPC does not automatically apply to tribal areas unless extended by the state government. It referred to Section 1(2) of the CrPC, which states that the Code does not apply to tribal areas unless notified by the government.

The Court further held:

“In cases where the accused and the victim both belong to the same Scheduled Tribe, the District Council Courts, as constituted under the Sixth Schedule, have the exclusive jurisdiction.”

The Court also noted that the Governor’s notification of February 7, 2017 explicitly granted District Council Courts the power to try serious offenses under the IPC. It ruled that this notification must be given full effect.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Exclusive jurisdiction of District Council Courts: Criminal cases involving only Scheduled Tribe members in autonomous districts are to be tried exclusively by District Council Courts.
Limited application of CrPC in tribal areas: The CrPC does not automatically apply to tribal regions unless specifically extended by a state notification.
Governor’s role in judicial administration: The Governor has the authority to define the jurisdiction of District Council Courts by issuing notifications.
Protection of tribal autonomy: The ruling strengthens the legal framework for tribal self-governance and upholds the autonomy of District Council Courts.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for the administration of justice in tribal areas. By reaffirming the exclusive jurisdiction of District Council Courts, the judgment ensures that the legal system in autonomous districts operates in accordance with traditional tribal governance structures.

The decision also reinforces the role of the Sixth Schedule in safeguarding the rights of indigenous communities by granting them legal autonomy. It sets a precedent for future cases where jurisdictional conflicts arise between regular courts and autonomous district courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in The State of Meghalaya vs. Melvin Sohlangpiaw establishes a clear precedent on the jurisdiction of District Council Courts in tribal areas. It affirms that these courts have exclusive authority over criminal cases involving only Scheduled Tribe members. By upholding the legislative intent of the Sixth Schedule, the ruling ensures that tribal communities retain control over their judicial processes.

Petitioner Name: The State of Meghalaya.
Respondent Name: Melvin Sohlangpiaw.
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya.
Judgment Date: 11-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The State of Meghala vs Melvin Sohlangpiaw Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-02-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category