Supreme Court Clarifies Scheduled Tribe Status of ‘Kulis’ in Odisha

The case before the Supreme Court of India dealt with a crucial question: whether the term “Kulis” mentioned in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, includes persons belonging to the “Kuli” community. This question has far-reaching implications for individuals belonging to these communities, particularly in the state of Odisha.

The legal battle emerged as the State of Odisha took a rigid stance that only Parliament can alter the list of Scheduled Tribes and that “Kuli” cannot be equated with “Kulis”. On the other hand, the respondent, Dasarathi Meher, argued that the terms were synonymous and that “Kulis” was merely the plural form of “Kuli.” The Supreme Court was called upon to interpret these provisions, ensuring that constitutional protections were not denied unjustly to a section of society.

Legal Provisions and Background

Article 342 of the Constitution of India grants the President the power to specify tribes or tribal communities that will be deemed Scheduled Tribes in different states or Union territories. Once this notification is issued, only Parliament can modify or alter the list. The provision reads:

“342. Scheduled Tribes – (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”

Arguments of the State of Odisha

The State of Odisha contended that courts do not have the power to modify, interpret, or expand the list of Scheduled Tribes in a manner not explicitly provided by law. The arguments were:

• The only authority empowered to make changes to the Scheduled Tribes list is Parliament.
• Since the 1976 Act specifically mentioned “Kulis,” it should not be interpreted to include “Kuli,” which was earlier recognized as a Scheduled Caste in certain regions.
• The Odisha High Court erred in its decision, as courts have no power to add or modify the list of Scheduled Tribes.
• Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Milind, where the Supreme Court held that the judiciary cannot expand or modify the list of Scheduled Tribes.

Arguments of the Respondent

The respondent, Dasarathi Meher, argued that the State of Odisha was trying to exclude a legitimate tribal community from its constitutional benefits. His contentions were:

• There is no separate community called “Kulis” in Odisha.
• The word “Kulis” is simply the plural form of “Kuli,” and they refer to the same people.
• The Odisha High Court had consistently ruled in favor of this interpretation, and those judgments were never challenged by the State.
• The Hindi version of the 1976 Amendment Act referred to the tribe as “Kuli,” supporting their claim.
• Historical documents and reports consistently used “Kuli” and “Kulis” interchangeably, indicating they are the same group.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court closely examined the issue and noted:

• There was no evidence before the court to show that “Kulis” is a separate community from “Kuli.”
• Historical records, governmental reports, and legal documents used “Kuli” and “Kulis” interchangeably.
• The Hindi version of the Amendment Act referred to “Kuli,” reinforcing that “Kulis” was a plural form.
• The Court held that excluding “Kuli” from “Kulis” would mean effectively deleting a Scheduled Tribe from the list, which courts cannot do.

Key Observations of the Court

The Court reaffirmed a critical legal principle:

“The power to alter the Presidential Order lies only with Parliament and no other authority. The notification issued by the President is final for all purposes and for all times except if modified by a law made by Parliament.”

Further, the judgment emphasized:

“If we do not include ‘Kuli’ in ‘Kulis,’ the net result would be that we would be deleting a tribe from the list of Scheduled Tribes, which no court or tribunal is entitled to do.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the previous decisions of the Odisha High Court, ruling that “Kulis” includes “Kuli.” The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that courts must ensure the constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes are upheld without unjust exclusion.

With this decision, members of the “Kuli” community in Odisha continue to benefit from Scheduled Tribe recognition, thereby receiving the educational and employment reservations and protections meant for them.

Petitioner Name: State of Orissa.
Respondent Name: Dasarathi Meher.
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Madan B. Lokur.
Place Of Incident: Odisha.
Judgment Date: 27-09-2018.

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

Download Judgment: State of Orissa vs Dasarathi Meher Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

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