Fatesang Gimba Vasava and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [AIR 1987 Guj 9]
Case Overview:
Fatesang Gimba Vasava and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [AIR 1987 Guj 9]
This is a significant decision by the Gujarat High Court dealing primarily with issues related to Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservations and the definition of Scheduled Tribe status under the Constitution of India, specifically regarding the inclusion/exclusion criteria, entitlement to benefits under ST category, and procedural safeguards.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners belonged to a community that claimed Scheduled Tribe status.
The Government of Gujarat issued notifications under the Constitution’s Scheduled Tribes provisions to specify the communities eligible for reservation benefits.
The petitioners challenged the exclusion of their community from the notified list of Scheduled Tribes.
The case revolved around the validity of the government’s notification excluding their community, the criteria used for recognition as Scheduled Tribes, and the procedural and substantive standards to be followed.
Legal Issues:
What is the correct procedure for inclusion/exclusion of communities in the Scheduled Tribes list?
What are the constitutional requirements and safeguards when the government decides on Scheduled Tribe status?
Can the government arbitrarily exclude a community from ST benefits?
What is the role of anthropological, sociological, and historical evidence in deciding Scheduled Tribe status?
Court’s Analysis:
The Court observed that recognition as a Scheduled Tribe is a constitutional process, governed by Article 342 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to specify Scheduled Tribes in consultation with the state government.
The criteria for Scheduled Tribe status typically include:
Indications of primitive traits,
Distinctive culture,
Geographical isolation,
Shyness of contact with the community at large,
Backwardness socially and economically.
The Court held that the government cannot arbitrarily exclude a community without proper investigation and without considering anthropological and socio-economic evidence.
Proper procedure requires that the government:
Conducts thorough inquiry,
Considers expert opinions,
Provides fair opportunity to affected parties before making or altering Scheduled Tribe notifications.
Exclusion without such due process was declared invalid.
Court’s Decision:
The Gujarat High Court set aside the government notification excluding the petitioners’ community.
The Court directed that the government must conduct an inquiry based on proper criteria and procedure.
It reaffirmed the principle that scheduled tribe status is not merely an administrative classification but a constitutional safeguard aimed at protecting vulnerable communities.
Relevant Legal Principles and Case Law:
Article 342 of the Constitution of India
It provides the power to the President to specify Scheduled Tribes, after consultation with the state government.
The power is not arbitrary but must be exercised based on objective criteria.
State of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale, AIR 1993 SC 2176
The Supreme Court held that the process for inclusion or exclusion from Scheduled Tribes must be thorough, based on socio-anthropological data and not arbitrary.
The court emphasized fair hearing and proper procedure.
K.K. Verma vs. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1464
The apex court recognized the importance of protecting the identity and culture of Scheduled Tribes.
Affirmed that classification must be based on substantial evidence.
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chaturbhuj, AIR 1958 SC 538
It was held that Scheduled Tribe classification is meant to ensure social justice and upliftment.
Arbitrary exclusion violates constitutional rights under Article 14 (Equality before law).
Significance of the Case:
The case reinforces that the recognition of Scheduled Tribe status is a constitutional safeguard, requiring objective and fair procedures.
Government notifications affecting ST status cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
It highlights the importance of comprehensive socio-anthropological studies and expert opinions before making policy decisions.
The ruling protects vulnerable communities from exclusion from benefits designed for their upliftment.
It acts as a precedent for cases dealing with ST classification disputes, ensuring procedural fairness and constitutional morality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments