Uttarakhand High Court Clarifies ST Criteria | Residence In Tribal Areas Not Enough | Only Recognized Communities Eligible
Safiya Malik
The Uttarakhand High Court, Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, directed the State Government to file a detailed affidavit clarifying the criteria for issuance of Scheduled Tribe certificates. The directive emerged during proceedings in a writ petition challenging the denial of Scheduled Tribe status based solely on community, irrespective of residence in notified tribal areas.
The Court observed that Scheduled Tribe recognition is community-specific under Article 342 of the Constitution and cannot be granted solely based on geographical residence. The Court recorded, "only the community has been declared to be Schedule Tribe and not the area and is infact the mandate of Article 342 of the Constitution of India."
The petitioners sought judicial intervention claiming entitlement to Scheduled Tribe certificates on the basis that they reside in a region notified as a tribal area. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that historically, many residents in the notified tribal belts of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and now Uttarakhand were issued Scheduled Tribe certificates based on their geographical residence.
Referring to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Court noted that the Scheduled Tribes listed for the State included only five communities: Bhotiya, Buksa, Jaunsari, Raaji, and Tharo. The petitioners relied on an RTI response indicating instances where persons residing in tribal areas had received Scheduled Tribe certificates regardless of their community background.
However, the State, represented through the Standing Counsel, submitted in its counter affidavit that the petitioners do not belong to any of the listed Scheduled Tribes, specifically not to the Jaunsari community. It was recorded that, "merely residing within the geographical limits of what has been classified as Jaunsar does not entitle the petitioners to claim the benefit as Jaunsar Tribal Community and they must possess the sociological indicators and way of life of the said community."
The petitioners' counsel, Mr. C.K. Sharma, contended that there has been a long-standing practice of issuing Scheduled Tribe certificates to individuals based solely on area of residence, and requested parity for the petitioners on that basis.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, after examining the legal provisions under Article 342 and the 1967 Presidential Notification, recorded: "The correct interpretation of these provisions would be that a person who belongs to these five communities are deemed to be Schedule Tribe."
Rejecting the area-based claim for Scheduled Tribe certification, the Court further recorded:
"This submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is completely against the mandate of Article 342 of the Constitution of India since the only community has been declared to be Schedule Tribe and not the area... Entitlement of certificate of Schedule Tribe only depends on whether a particular person, who claims to be a Schedule Tribe should belong to that community."
The Court pointed to the potential gravity of the petitioners' claims, noting the assertion that large numbers of ST certificates may have been issued in error over time. The judgment recorded:
"If it is so, then it is a very serious issue. Let a fresh affidavit be filed within a week by the State to explain on what basis the Schedule Tribe certificates are being issued whether on the basis of the residence or on the basis that a particular person belongs to these communities i.e. Bhotiya, Buksa, Jaunsari, Raaji and Tharo."
The Court also directed the State to disclose the criteria currently followed to determine community identity in the context of Scheduled Tribe certification, and further added: "They may further disclose that how many persons have been granted Schedule Tribe certificates on the basis of the residence."
The Uttarakhand High Court issued the following key directives:
- The State Government is to file a fresh affidavit within a week.
- The affidavit must explain whether Scheduled Tribe certificates are issued based on community identity or merely on the basis of residence in notified tribal areas.
- The State must disclose the official criteria for determining if a person belongs to one of the five Scheduled Tribe communities.
- The State must also provide data on the number of certificates issued based solely on area of residence.
- The matter is listed for the next hearing on 16 May 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.K. Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel, Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State
Case Title: Itika Pande and Another vs State of Uttarakhand and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition (MS) No. 2303 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
[Read/Download order]
