Constitution of India – Arts.341 and 342 – 1950 Presidential Order declared “Kulis” to be Scheduled Tribe in the appellant-State – However, 1956 Presidential Order declared “Kuli” to be Scheduled Caste in Sambalpur District only while also continued declaring “Kulis” to be Scheduled Tribe in the State – Said Presidential Orders replaced by 1976 Act in which caste “Kuli” was not mentioned, however,”Kulis” was notified as Scheduled Tribe – Issue as to whether the tribe mentioned as “Kulis” in the 1976 Act includes persons belonging to the “Kuli” community – Held: After the President issues Order u/Art.341 or 342, specifying the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups thereof, which shall for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State, the said Order cannot be amended, modified, added to or any caste or tribe deleted therefrom by the State or by any court or tribunal – Only the Parliament can enact a law to include or exclude any caste, race or tribe from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes– However, the Court has to ensure that the order is read in such a manner that no caste or tribe, which is intended by President or by Parliament to be included, is actually excluded – In the present case, earlier the President (in the Presidential Order) and later Parliament (in the 1976 Act) had included “Kulis” in the list of Scheduled Tribe – However, the State has failed to show that there is any community caste or tribe, known as “Kulis” in the State of Odisha – Thus, there was only one community known as “Kuli” which was treated as Scheduled Caste in Sambalpur District for some time but was treated as Scheduled Tribe for the entire State – Term “Kulis” used in the Order is in the nature of plural for “Kuli” –”Kulis” and “Kuli” have been used interchangeably – Thus, if “Kuli” is not included in “Kulis”, the net result would be deleting a Tribe from the list of Scheduled Tribes – This also no Court or Tribunal is entitled to – Any other interpretation would mean that nobody would be able to take benefit of belonging to “Kulis” tribe– Term “Kulis” will include members of the “Kuli” community – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976– Schedule II, Part XII– Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950– Part VI– Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956– Part IX, Schedule I, Part IX, Schedule III.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Despite pointed queries put by the Court, the appellant and the intervenor could not place any material to show that there is a separate community by the name “Kulis”. Time and again, the documents which were referred to were the documents relating to the period when “Kuli” were declared to be Scheduled Caste in the district Sambalpur whereas “Kulis” were declared to be a tribe in the entire State. The documents referred to by both the parties which are more in the nature of reports, indicate that “Kuli” is a community of weavers who were earlier forest dwellers. This community is engaged in the weaving of very coarse type of cloth. In none of the documents could one find any material to show that “Kuli” or “Kulis” are two different castes or tribes dealing with some different vocations. In all the documents they have been dealt with synonymously. [Para 16] [4520-H; 453-A-C]
1.2 In the statement showing the population, both communities are described as “Kuli” but while describing the occupation, the members of the community are described as “Kulis”. This shows that there was only one community known as “Kuli”, which was treated as Scheduled Caste for some time in the district of Sambalpur but was treated as Scheduled Tribe for the entire State of Odisha. In none of the documents placed by the State, there is any indication to show that there is a separate caste or tribe by the name “Kulis”. [Para 21] [455-D]
1.3 In the 24th Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is clearly indicated that the “Kuli” community has been deleted from the list of Scheduled Castes in Sambalpur as “Kulis” are already declared as Scheduled Tribe throughout the State. This clearly indicates that the Commissioner was of the view that “Kuli” community which was one of the communities declared to be Scheduled Castes in Sambalpur district, would now fall in the category of Scheduled Tribe. [Para 22] [455-E-H]
1.4 The State has failed to show that there is any community caste or tribe, known as “Kulis”. The community is known as “Kuli”. Further, it is apparent that the term “Kulis” used in the Order is in the nature of plural for “Kuli”. This becomes even more apparent from the various documents referred wherein the terms “Kulis” and “Kuli” have been used interchangeably and though the caste or tribe has been described as “Kuli”, the members of the community, when dealt with together, have been described as “Kulis”. Furthermore, in the Hindi version of the Amendment Act of 1976, the Scheduled Tribe has been described as “Kuli” and not “Kulis”. [Para 23] [456-A-B]
1.5 The power of the Court is very limited and the Court cannot modify, alter, add to or subtract from the Presidential Order issued under Article 342 or the notification issued by Parliament. One is fully conscious of the limitations on the powers of this Court. Court cannot add to, alter or modify the notified list of Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Court cannot take into consideration any evidence in this regard. At the same time, Court cannot give such an interpretation to a Caste or Tribe mentioned in the list of notified Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which would have the effect of nullifying the intention of the Parliament. In the present case, earlier the President and later Parliament had included “Kulis” in the list of Scheduled Tribe. It has been found that there is no community by the name “Kulis” in the State of Odisha. The only community is “Kuli”. If “Kuli” is not included in “Kulis”, the net result would be of deleting a Tribe from the list of Scheduled Tribes. This also no Court or Tribunal is entitled to. The entries in the list are to be read in a manner which is consistent with the intention of the Parliament. Earlier the President and later Parliament while using the term “Kulis” only intended it to be used as plural for the word “Kuli”. Any other interpretation would mean that nobody would be able to take benefit of belonging to “Kulis” tribe. The term “Kulis” in the English version will include members of the “Kuli” community. [Paras 10, 25 and 26] [451-D-E; 456-E-H; 457-A-B]
B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa [1965] 1 SCR
316 ; Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh AIR 1965 SC 1557 : [1965] 2 SCR 877; State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65 ; Sebaram Meher v. The State of Orissa 58 (1984) CLT
562 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.