In a groundbreaking decision rendered last November, the Supreme Court refrained from issuing directives to ensure proportional representation for the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal (WB) and Sikkim. Citing the need for amendments to the Representation of Peoples Act, the Court emphasized that legislative changes were crucial to augment the existing reservation schedules.
The verdict, delivered by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on November 23, asserted that the Court lacked the authority to mandate legislative amendments. The Bench clarified that directing Parliament to legislate in a specific manner for proportional representation would encroach upon the legislative domain.
Simultaneously, the Court directed the Union Government to contemplate invoking the Delimitation Act’s powers to ensure fair representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
“…it is for the Union Government to take recourse to the powers under the Delimitation Act 2002 for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of Articles 330 and 332 are duly implemented. The Central Government should take a decision with all reasonable dispatch, in accordance with law,” emphasized the judgment.
Dismissing the Union Government’s contention regarding Article 170 of the Constitution potentially impeding a fresh delimitation exercise, the Bench clarified that this provision did not affect the issue raised in the proceedings. The Court underlined the necessity for addressing the inclusion of nearly fifty-one communities added to the list of Scheduled Tribes after 2001.
The case’s backdrop involves the Limboo and Tamang communities being included in the list of STs for WB and Sikkim through the Scheduled Castes and STs Orders (Amendment) Act 2002. Discontent arose when the 2006 Delimitation Notification and the subsequent 2008 Order did not account for these communities. The petitioners sought proportional ST representation, contending that these acts were defective and would violate the Constitution.
The Court, while recognizing the Delimitation Commission’s powers under the Delimitation Commission Act, held that changes to the 2006 Notification were only possible until its final publication. It emphasized that once published, the Notification could not be amended, as it gained the force of law.
Addressing the Election Commission’s role, the Bench stated that the RP Act did not oblige the Election Commission to amend the 2008 Order to include the 2002 amending Act. It clarified that the Election Commission’s discretion to consolidate orders was subject to specific conditions, and the duty to amend arose only under fulfilled conditions.
In conclusion, the judgment assured that it would not interfere with the Election Commission’s prescribed election schedule for Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies.
This pivotal decision emerged from the case titled “Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas and Anr v. Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No 443 of 2017 (and connected matter).” Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Pritika Kumar represented the petitioners, while ASG KM Nataraj, Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Ashok Panda, and Advocate Amit Sharma represented the respondents.
