Gauhati High Court Denies Interim Relief To Allow MP Naba Kumar Sarania To Contest Polls Over SLCSC Order Stating He Doesn't Belong To ST Community

The division bench of Gauhati High Court on Wednesday set aside an interim order by a single bench which suspended an order passed by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee which opined that Naba Kumar Sarania, a sitting Lok Sabha member from Kokrajhar constituency does not belong to Bodo/Bodo Kachari community, which is a recognized ST(P) community in Assam.

The consequence of the said decision of the division bench is that Saranai, a sitting Lok Sabha member for two terms from Kokrajhar would not be able to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha election from Kokrajhar Constituency, which is an ST (P) reserved constituency, subject to the final adjudication of the case. 

The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman Shyam observed:

“True it is that the respondent No. 1 has been a Member of Parliament for two terms and he is also contemplating to contest in the upcoming Parliamentary Elections but this fact itself cannot be termed as a valid ground for granting interim relief to him which amounts to granting the final relief while the writ petition is still pending adjudication. If the respondent No. 1 is allowed to contest the ensuing Parliamentary Elections on the strength of an interim order passed by this Court, that may lead to further chaos and complications in case the writ petition is decided against him. Further, such a recourse, in our opinion, would also be adverse to the public interest at large.”

The State of Assam preferred an appeal against the interim order of Single judge bench which suspended the impugned order dated January 12, 2024, passed by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and all consequential action thereof affecting the tribal status of Naba Kumar Sarania (the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1), including the order of cancellation of such certificate, till disposal of the writ petition.

The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) by order dated 12.01.2024 has opined that Sarania, does not belong to the Bodo/Bodo Kachari community, which is a recognized ST(P) community in Assam.

Pursuant to the said opinion of SLSC, the caste certificate dated October 17, 2011 issued in favour of Sarania certifying that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe (Plains) Caste/Community (Bodo Kachari), issued by the Assam Tribal Sangha, Tamulpur District Unit, was cancelled by the Government of Assam, Department of Tribal Affairs (Plains) vide order dated January 20, 2024.

Aggrieved by the order dated January 01, 2024, passed by the SLSC, Sarania approached the High Court by way of filing a writ petition. However, he did not challenge the order dated January 20, 2024, which cancelled his ST(P) certificate.

The single judge has recorded the following prima facie opinion:

1. The SLSC has not given any reason, even in brief, as regards the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the contention raised by the petitioner or by the private respondent in the writ petition.
2. The Vigilance Officer did not examine the petitioner personally and his non-examination is suggestive of violation of a right envisaged in paragraph 5 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241.
3. The petitioner was not provided with any opportunity of leading evidence in the proceedings before the SLSC to defend his social status though such right is pivotal for a fair proceeding for the determination of caste status under the mandate of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and under the scheme of the Office Memorandum dated May 11, 2018.

Challenging the impugned order passed by the single judge bench, Advocate General D. Saikia submitted that the Vigilance Officer as well as the SLSC have followed the procedure prescribed in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as well as in the Office Memorandum dated May 11, 2018, in its full letter and spirit.

It was further contended that in the present case, the Enquiry Officer has examined the mother and the brother of respondent No. 1 (Naba Kumar Sarania) and has not felt it necessary to examine respondent No. 1 personally. However, it was stated the same cannot be treated as a violation of the mandate of the Supreme Court rendered in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).

It was argued that in the two responses filed by respondent No. 1, he did not ask for granting him the opportunity to adduce evidence, rather, he clearly stated that he is grateful to the Chairman and the Members of the SLSC for giving him a patient hearing for the cause of justice. It was contended that the single judge erred in giving a finding that the order passed by the SLSC was a non-speaking order.

The Advocate General submitted that respondent No. 1 belongs to the “Sarania Kachari” community, which is not a recognized Scheduled Tribe in Assam. He referred to the Central Order No. 22 dated September 06, 1950, and submitted that “Sarania Kachari” community is not an enlisted tribe. It was further argued that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge virtually amounts to granting of final relief to the respondent No. 1.

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid appearing for Sarania submitted that from the mandate of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), it was incumbent upon the SLSC to give reasons, even if in brief, for accepting the report of the Vigilance Officer.

It was further submitted that the vigilance officer has not examined respondent No. 1 personally and, as such, the findings recorded by the single judge to the effect that the right of respondent No. 1 of personal examination has been violated is not liable to be interfered with.

It was argued that respondent no. 1 has been a Member of Parliament for two terms and the election proceedings for the next Parliamentary Elections have already commenced, wherein respondent no. 1 is also intending to contest and, therefore, if the order dated January 12, 2024, and the consequential order dated January 20, 2024, are not suspended, the respondent no. 1 will suffer irreparable loss.

The bench noted that the order of the SLSC cannot be treated as a non-speaking order. The Court further observed that the primary responsibility of the vigilance officer is to conduct a fact-finding enquiry and submit a report.

“If the finding of facts projected in such report remains un-rebutted by the contestant, then in that event, it will be open for the SLSC to form an opinion by taking cognizance of such report. After going through the paragraph 13.5 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), it can therefore be said that in every case personal examination of the candidate, or even the parents, guardians, or other relatives is not mandatory. It is only when there is no other incriminating evidence available before the Vigilance Officer, he should personally examine the candidate, or the parents/guardians or other relatives of the candidate,” the Court said.

It was remarked by the Court that it was true that the SLSC has not issued any notice to the respondent No. 1 providing him opportunity to adduce evidence, but it can be gathered from the two responses filed by the respondent No. 1 that he did not demand any opportunity for adducing evidence though he had requested for personal hearing by the committee and that request was accepted and the respondent No. 1 was personally heard.

“The learned Single Judge has suspended the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the SLSC and has also suspended the consequential order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the State of Assam cancelling the ST(P) certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 1. Whereas the order dated 20.01.2024 is not under challenge and the main challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 12.01.2024. In our opinion, suspension of the orders dated 12.01.2024 and 20.01.2024 by an interim order virtually amounts to granting of final relief to the respondent No. 1 without adjudication of the dispute on merits,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Single Judge. The Court further directed the Registry to list the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 on April 05, 2024 before the Single Judge, for final disposal.

The Court noted that the Single Judge should decide the writ petition expeditiously while hearing on it on a day-to-day basis if needed.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 22

Case Title: State of Assam & 4 Ors. v. Naba Kumar Sarania & 3 Ors.

Case No.: WA/110/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order