Merely Because Either Parent Is Non-Tribal, Child Cannot Be Denied Scheduled Tribe Certificate: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court's circuit bench at Port Blair has come to the aid of a NEET candidate who had not been issued a scheduled tribe certificate for the upcoming entrance examinations, even after being considered eligible for an ST certificate by the authorities.

Justice Aniruddha Roy held: The law on the subject prescribe that several factual factors are required to be considered to decide whether an individual can be considered as Scheduled Tribe or not. Merely because only either of the father or mother being non-tribal, one cannot be denied, the Scheduled Tribe certificate.

Once the Scheduled Tribe community has been recognized with protection of their rights under the Constitution of India, an individual when applies for his/her Scheduled Tribe certificate, it is the right of such an individual to be considered in accordance with law and if ultimately he/she succeeds in the process, it is his/her constitutional right to receive Scheduled Tribe certificate, he added.

Petitioners submitted that the urgency in the matter was that the petitioner no.2 is an aspirant for the entrance examination for NEET as a Scheduled Tribe candidate and the petitioner no.2 shall have to produce the Scheduled Tribe certificate along with her application.

The grievance of the petitioners was that, despite the application being submitted through online mode on September 5, 2024, for obtaining the Scheduled Tribe certificate, the application was not considered and was kept pending. 

Even after making representations in the prescribed format, the petitioner's case for getting an ST certificate was rejected by the Tehsildar, who claimed that 

In the order of rejection it was stated that though the mother of the petitioner belongs to a Schedule Tribe community, she married the father of the petitioner, who belongs to a forward community and since the petitioner was brought up in a forward community without any acquaintance with the tribal community, the application was rejected.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the copy of the cancellation of the certificate was not sent to the petitioners, and the unilateral cancellation of the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner was bad in law.

Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, to decide whether an individual belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community or not and whether he/she is eligible to receive certificate to be granted by the appropriate authority, various factors are to be taken into consideration.

It was said that in the present case, the record shows that the petitioner came from a sound financial family background and belonged to a forward community. 

The petitioner being the daughter of a forward class father has been brought up in the forward class society and never was connected with the tribal society. She was never treated as member ofthe community of which her mother belongs to being the Scheduled Tribe community, it was submitted.

After considering the contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the Court reiterated that the Constitution of India itself has provided and protected certain rights of the Scheduled Tribes.

Since the Constitution of the country has recognized the particular class being Scheduled Tribe and their rights are protected under the Constitution, an individual belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community gets his/her certain rights protected under the Constitution, the court said.

The law presumes when the appropriate authorities have issued declaration in the prescribed format, they have made the declaration upon being satisfied with all the relevant factors which were essentially required to be considered for making the said declaration. The law further presumes that the authorities have acted in accordance with law and after following the prescribed procedures of law, have issued and made the said declaration in favour of the petitioner no.2. It is also not alleged that the said declaration was obtained by the petitioners by practicing fraud upon the appropriate authorities, it was held.

The court held that the recommendation in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioners, without any notice. Just by exercising an executive authority.

Such an unilateral action on the part of the executive in issuing the said communication dated December 21, 2024 is not only bad in law but also illegal and wrongful in the eye of law. The constitutional right should not be taken away without exercising the established procedure of law, it was held.

Accordingly, in holding that the petitioner did not lose her status as a member of a scheduled tribe just by lieu of her father belonging to an upper tribe, the court directed the grant of the ST certificate to the petitioner within 24 hours.

Case: SMT. NAZREEN BANU AND ANOTHER v THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS

Case No: WPA/653/2024

Click here to read order