Gauhati HC Rejects Plea Against Tribal Sangha Role | Sangha Can Recommend But Only Authorities Can Decide ST Status As Per 2022 Guidelines
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kardak Ete declined to grant the blanket relief sought against the issuance of Scheduled Tribe (Plains) [ST(P)] certificates. The Court held that no general order could be passed to restrain authorities from issuing such certificates to members of a specific community and dismissed the petition accordingly. The Bench stated that individual grievances must be addressed through appropriate forums and held that the process of issuing caste certificates must adhere to the procedural safeguards already prescribed in the official guidelines.
The petitioners, Kalbari Educated Unemployed Youth Society, represented by its President, and its secretary, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 77/2024) seeking multiple reliefs primarily aimed at prohibiting the issuance of ST(P) certificates to persons belonging to the Sarania community. The primary grievance arose from governmental instructions authorizing the All-Assam Tribal Sangha to recommend issuance of ST(P) certificates.
The petitioners claimed that the Sarania community is not a notified Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of India and thus, members of the community were ineligible to be granted ST(P) certificates. The PIL specifically challenged the instructions issued by the State Government vide letters dated 16.03.2024 and 27.06.2024, alleging that these communications unlawfully empowered the All-Assam Tribal Sangha and its district units to recommend issuance of caste certificates without proper legal authority.
The petitioners also cited a previous judgment in PIL No. 30/2019, claiming that the continued reliance on Tribal Sangha for recommendations was contrary to the directions laid down by the Court. They sought, among other things, a direction prohibiting the issuance of ST(P) certificates to members of the Sarania community, a declaration that all such certificates already issued were invalid, and a quashing of the aforementioned government letters.
In support of their case, the petitioners invoked the Supreme Court judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil, which laid down procedures for verifying social status claims. They contended that the involvement of non-statutory bodies like the All-Assam Tribal Sangha undermined these procedures.
On 07.03.2025, the Court recorded its reservations regarding the blanket nature of reliefs sought. It observed that no general order could be issued barring authorities from issuing ST(P) certificates and noted that individual grievances regarding certificate issuance could be challenged before the appropriate verification authority.
Further hearing on 17.03.2025 saw additional time being granted for instructions. However, the primary concern of the petitioners remained unchanged—objection to the delegation of certificate verification responsibilities to a non-governmental body.
The State Government, through its letters dated 16.03.2024 and 27.06.2024, authorized the All-Assam Tribal Sangha and its district units to make recommendations regarding ST(P) status after verifying caste identity, family history, land records, and ethnic origin. The instructions allowed these recommendations to be considered by the appropriate authority for issuance of caste certificates.
The Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2022 was also placed on record. It laid down comprehensive guidelines for issuance of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and OBC/MOBC certificates. Applicants were required to submit applications online, attach the caste certificate of the father or an identification certificate issued by a recognized tribal organization, and undergo scrutiny by the Deputy Commissioner. The process involved further inquiries in case of doubt, including verification through authorized caste organizations or the Circle Officer.
The Division Bench noted that the prayer in the PIL was overly broad and not maintainable as a blanket relief. The Court recorded: "No blanket order can be issued restraining the respondent authorities from issuing ST(P) certificate to any individual belonging to a particular community." It held that such grievances, if any, should be addressed on a case-to-case basis through appropriate legal mechanisms.
The Court acknowledged that the petitioners were primarily aggrieved by the authorization given to the All-Assam Tribal Sangha. However, it found no merit in the argument that such authorization was illegal. The Court observed that the Office Memorandum of 08.08.2022 clearly vested the Deputy Commissioner with the final authority to scrutinize applications and conduct inquiries in case of doubt.
Quoting from the earlier decision in PIL No. 30/2019, the Court reiterated: "Such authorities shall also make their own application of mind based upon the materials that may be available for issuing the certificates." It was stated that the recommendations of the All-Assam Tribal Sangha were only preliminary and not binding on the issuing authority.
The Division Bench further stated: "The said process, if adopted, would not be contrary to any provisions of any other law, if the exercise is limited to the extent of making a preliminary enquiry as to which person would belong to the Tribal communities for being entitled to a certificate of their status."
According to the Court, the petitioners failed to establish that the instructions of 16.03.2024 and 27.06.2024 granted exclusive authority to the All-Assam Tribal Sangha. It recorded: "It cannot be said that only the said Tribal Sangha and its District Units have been authorized to issue the caste certificates for Scheduled Tribes in Assam."
The Court held that the entire process must adhere to the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2022, which required scrutiny and verification by the Deputy Commissioner, with avenues for further inquiry in cases of doubt.
The High Court dismissed the PIL petition, holding that no relief could be granted in light of the previous decision in PIL No. 30/2019 and the procedural safeguards already in place. The Court stated: "We do not find any merit in the challenge of the petitioners to the letters dated 16.03.2024 and 27.06.2024 issued by the State Government. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this PIL petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed."
Additionally, the Court clarified the duties of issuing authorities, directing: "The authorities who are authorized to issue caste certificates in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes/Most Other Backward Classes are required to strictly follow the procedures laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2022."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Dasgupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Mr. D.K. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Mr. P. Hazarika, Advocate
Case Title: Kalbari Educated Unemployed Youth Society v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:6403-DB
Case Number: PIL/77/2024
Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice Kardak Ete
[Read/Download order]
