State Says No Infiltration Of Bangladeshis But Silent On Reason For Reduction Of Tribal Population In Some Areas: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday expressed dismay at the State authorities' silence in their affidavits over the declining tribal population in the Santhal Pargana region. The remarks were made in the court's order passed while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea highlighting alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh in the region.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice...
The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday expressed dismay at the State authorities' silence in their affidavits over the declining tribal population in the Santhal Pargana region. The remarks were made in the court's order passed while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea highlighting alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh in the region.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing a PIL moved by one Danyaal Danish claiming that in six districts– Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deoghar (comprising of the Santhal Pargana region), there is wide-scale infiltration of the foreigners who are "mainly coming" from Bangladesh.
No reply in affidavit on reasons for declining scheduled tribes in Santhal Pargana region
In its order passed on Thursday the high court observed,
"The Deputy Commissioner and SPs of the respective districts, i.e., Godda, Jamtata, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deoghar have filed affidavits...This Court has gone through the contents of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of the respective districts wherein it has been stated that there is no infiltration of the Bangladeshi immigrants but there is no reference with respect to the reason of reducing number of schedule tribes in the respective areas".
The bench further observed that as per the data–which had been placed by the petitioner in the earlier hearing–showing a "reduction in the population of the schedule tribes in the area from 44.67% in the year 1951 to 28.11% in the year 2011" had been taken note of by the high court in its August 8 order.
However, "very surprisingly", there was "no reply" on this aspect and there had been no production of any relevant data with "respect to reduction in population of the tribal in the respective areas which needs to be responded by the respondent-State", the high court underscored.
Noting that the affidavit failed to properly explain the status despite a specific law enacted to protect the rights of tribal persons the high court further said, "This Court fails to understand that how such affidavit has been filed without explaining the position that when for protecting the right of the tribal people of the Santhal Pargana Region, a tenancy law is there, known as Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act since the year 1872 and supplemented in the year 1949 wherein specific provision has been made putting embargo in transferring of the land".
For context, the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act 1872 was a British legislation (supplemented post independence with the Santhal Parganas Tenancy [Supplementary Provisions] Act in1949) aimed at restricting transfer of adivasi land to non-adivaasis in the Santhal Pargana Region thereby granting protection to the rights of the tribal community.
Listing the matter on September 5, the high court directed that this aspect is to be answered by the concerned department of the State calling for a "specific affidavit in this regard"on or before the next date of hearing.
BSF's Request for Extension Rejected
At the outset, the high court addressed two interlocutory applications filed by the BSF and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).
The first interlocutory application, submitted by the BSF, sought a four-week extension to compile and verify a large volume of data required for filing a counter affidavit. The BSF argued that this extension was necessary as the data had to be collected from various field formations and subsequently approved by the Director General (DG) of the BSF.
The high court however said, “This Court, considering the nature of relief sought for which pertains to change in the demography and the remarkable decrease in the population of the schedule tribes due to illegal immigrants which has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as external aggression, is of the view that seeking six weeks' time is not just and proper,” and accordingly rejected the BSF's request for an extension.
UIDAI's Request for Additional Time Also Denied
The court then considered the second interlocutory application filed by the UIDAI, which requested a six-week extension to gather statistical data and graphs related to Aadhaar enrolment in the districts of Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj, and Deoghar. The UIDAI claimed that the data needed to be sourced from its Technology Centre in Bengaluru and Data Centre in Manesar.
The court however said, “This Court fails to understand that the U.I.D.A.I. is having its own online network and all the data, while preparing the Aadhaar Card of one or the others who are entitled to get it, is already there in the system then where is the occasion to seek six weeks' time for seeking data from the Technology Centre at Bengaluru/Data Centre at Manesar.”
“The affidavit which has been filed for extension of six weeks' time, considering the nature of issue which is the subject matter of the present public interest litigation as has been referred hereinabove,” the Court added while consequently, rejecting the UIDAI's application, deeming it neither "just nor proper."
The court directed both the BSF and the UIDAI to submit their affidavits before the next hearing date.
Background
In its August 8 order took note of a document presented by the petitioner on the state's demographic set–particularly the Santhal Pargana region (as per Census 1951-2011). The petitioner's counsel submitted that the percentage of tribal population in the Santhal Pargana region had "decreased drastically"–44.67% in 1951 to 28.11% in 2011, whereas the Muslim population had "increased manifold"–from 9.44% of the total population in 1951 to 22.73 % in 2011.
Referring to charts and data, the petitioner's counsel had then argued that "due to infiltration, illegal immigration etc., the demographic set up of Jharkhand in particular Santhal Pargana Region is changing rapidly", adding that if the population of the schedule tribe decreases in the Santhal Pargana region then the "interest of the State of Jharkhand in particular the tribal community, would be jeopardised".
The high court in its August 8 order had taken note of the "extinguishment of tribal community from the State for which the State of Jharkhand was created to protect their interest".
Asking the state to respond to the petitioner's submission the bench had then said, "This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the same is also required to be responded by the State, and if that be so the matter appears to be very serious, in addition to the issue of illegal immigrants as it is a question of extinguishment of tribal community from the State for which the State of Jharkhand was created to protect their interest as also for securing their right, the tenancy law was enacted in the State of Jharkhand i.e., the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 in the Santhal Pargana area and Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the Chotanagpur region".
The high court had further directed the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned districts to pass necessary orders to ensure that documents such as –Ration card, Voter card, Aadhar Card or B.P.L. Card etc. are issued only after verifying the 'record of rights'.For context, a record of right is a document containing details of land and its ownership.
Case Title: Danyaal Danish vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 128