STATE OF ORISSA versus DASARATHI MEHER on 27 September 2018

STATE OF ORISSA

v.

DASARATHI MEHER

(Civil Appeal No. 7362 of 2013)

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Constitution of India – Arts.341 and 342 – 1950 PresidentialOrder declared “Kulis” to be Scheduled Tribe in the appellant-State– However, 1956 Presidential Order declared “Kuli” to be ScheduledCaste in Sambalpur District only while also continued declaring“Kulis” to be Scheduled Tribe in the State – Said Presidential Ordersreplaced by 1976 Act in which caste “Kuli” was not mentioned,however,”Kulis” was notified as Scheduled Tribe – Issue as towhether the tribe mentioned as “Kulis” in the 1976 Act includespersons belonging to the “Kuli” community – Held: After thePresident issues Order u/Art.341 or 342, specifying the tribes ortribal communities or parts of or groups thereof, which shall for thepurposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes inrelation to that State, the said Order cannot be amended, modified,added to or any caste or tribe deleted therefrom by the State or byany court or tribunal – Only the Parliament can enact a law toinclude or exclude any caste, race or tribe from the list of ScheduledCastes or Scheduled Tribes– However, the Court has to ensure thatthe order is read in such a manner that no caste or tribe, which isintended by President or by Parliament to be included, is actuallyexcluded – In the present case, earlier the President (in thePresidential Order) and later Parliament (in the 1976 Act) hadincluded “Kulis” in the list of Scheduled Tribe – However, the Statehas failed to show that there is any community caste or tribe, knownas “Kulis” in the State of Odisha – Thus, there was only onecommunity known as “Kuli” which was treated as Scheduled Castein Sambalpur District for some time but was treated as ScheduledTribe for the entire State – Term “Kulis” used in the Order is in thenature of plural for “Kuli” –”Kulis” and “Kuli” have been usedinterchangeably – Thus, if “Kuli” is not included in “Kulis”, thenet result would be deleting a Tribe from the list of Scheduled Tribes

443

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A– This also no Court or Tribunal is entitled to – Any otherinterpretation would mean that nobody would be able to take benefitof belonging to “Kulis” tribe– Term “Kulis” will include membersof the “Kuli” community – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled TribesOrders (Amendment) Act, 1976– Schedule II, Part XII– Constitution(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950– Part VI– Scheduled Castes andBScheduled 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, theCappellant and the intervenor could not place any material to showthat there is a separate community by the name “Kulis”. Timeand again, the documents which were referred to were thedocuments relating to the period when “Kuli” were declared tobe Scheduled Caste in the district Sambalpur whereas “Kulis”Dwere declared to be a tribe in the entire State. The documentsreferred to by both the parties which are more in the nature ofreports, indicate that “Kuli” is a community of weavers who wereearlier forest dwellers. This community is engaged in the weavingof very coarse type of cloth. In none of the documents could onefind any material to show that “Kuli” or “Kulis” are two differentEcastes or tribes dealing with some different vocations. In all thedocuments they have been dealt with synonymously. [Para 16][4520-H; 453-A-C]

1.2 In the statement showing the population, bothcommunities are described as “Kuli” but while describing theFoccupation, the members of the community are described as“Kulis”. This shows that there was only one community knownas “Kuli”, which was treated as Scheduled Caste for some timein the district of Sambalpur but was treated as Scheduled Tribefor the entire State of Odisha. In none of the documents placedGby the State, there is any indication to show that there is a separatecaste or tribe by the name “Kulis”. [Para 21] [455-D]

1.3 In the 24[th] Report of the Commissioner for ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes, it is clearly indicated that the “Kuli”community has been deleted from the list of Scheduled Castes inH

Sambalpur as “Kulis” are already declared as Scheduled Tribethroughout the State. This clearly indicates that the Commissionerwas of the view that “Kuli” community which was one of thecommunities declared to be Scheduled Castes in Sambalpurdistrict, 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 communitycaste or tribe, known as “Kulis”. The community is known as“Kuli”. Further, it is apparent that the term “Kulis” used in theOrder is in the nature of plural for “Kuli”. This becomes evenmore apparent from the various documents referred wherein theterms “Kulis” and “Kuli” have been used interchangeably andthough the caste or tribe has been described as “Kuli”, themembers of the community, when dealt with together, have beendescribed as “Kulis”. Furthermore, in the Hindi version of theAmendment Act of 1976, the Scheduled Tribe has been describedas “Kuli” and not “Kulis”. [Para 23] [456-A-B]

1.5 The power of the Court is very limited and the Courtcannot modify, alter, add to or subtract from the Presidential Orderissued under Article 342 or the notification issued by Parliament.One is fully conscious of the limitations on the powers of thisCourt. Court cannot add to, alter or modify the notified list ofSchedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Court cannot take intoconsideration any evidence in this regard. At the same time,Court cannot give such an interpretation to a Caste or Tribementioned in the list of notified Scheduled Castes or ScheduledTribes which would have the effect of nullifying the intention ofthe Parliament. In the present case, earlier the President andlater Parliament had included “Kulis” in the list of ScheduledTribe. 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 ofdeleting a Tribe from the list of Scheduled Tribes. This also noCourt or Tribunal is entitled to. The entries in the list are to beread in a manner which is consistent with the intention of theParliament. Earlier the President and later Parliament while using A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Athe term “Kulis” only intended it to be used as plural for theword “Kuli”. Any other interpretation would mean that nobodywould be able to take benefit of belonging to “Kulis” tribe. Theterm “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

B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa [1965] 1 SCR316 ; Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh AIR 1965 SC1557 : [1965] 2 SCR 877; State of Maharashtra v.Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65 ;CSebaram Meher v. The State of Orissa 58 (1984) CLT562 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7362

of 2013

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2011 of the High Courtof Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 18140 of 2011F

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 7363 of 2013, Civil Appeal Nos.10066, 10061and 10065 of 2018.

G

V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Shibashish Misra, Ashish Kumar Sinha, ChandanKumar Mandal, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ms. Kavita Bhardwaj, S. K. Patri,S.K. Rajora, Mohd. Gayasuddin, R.P. Goyal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Soumyajit Pani, Ms. Svadha Sankar, Chittaranjan Singh, Sunil KumarJain, Vinodh Kanna B., Shibashish Misra, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Jay SavlaHAdvs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 13172of 2015, SLP (C) No. 13169 of 2015 and SLP (C) No. 13171 of 2015.

2. Whether the tribe mentioned as “Kulis” in the Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 in Schedule II inPart XII at Item No. 42 includes persons belonging to the “Kuli”community, is the issue which needs to be decided in the present groupof cases.

3. Article 342 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

“342. Scheduled Tribes.- (1) The President may with respectto any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, afterconsultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification,specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups withintribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of thisConstitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to thatState or Union territory, as the case may be.

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list ofScheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause(1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within anytribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issuedunder the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequentnotification.”

4. It would be pertinent to mention that the aforesaid article isalmost identical to Article 341 relating to Scheduled Castes. The onlydifference being that Article 341 deals with “castes, races or tribes orparts of or groups within castes, races or tribes” whereas Article 342deals only with “tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups withintribes or tribal communities”. This small difference will not have anyeffect while interpreting the two articles on the facts of these cases.

5. The stand of the appellant, the State of Odisha (formerly knownas ‘Orissa’) and the intervenor is that since in the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes Order, the tribe which has been declared to be aScheduled Tribe is “Kulis”, the members of the “Kuli” community cannottake benefit of being declared as Scheduled Tribes. It is further submittedthat no court including this Court has the power to change or modify A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Awhat is stated in the Presidential Order and later in the Act of Parliamentand, therefore, the High Court erred in holding that “Kulis” would include“Kuli”.

6. Before dealing with the factual aspect of the matter it would bepertinent to reiterate the legal position and the limits of the power of theBcourt while dealing with these issues. A bare perusal of clause (1) ofArticle 342 of the Constitution clearly shows that the President withrespect to any State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, mayby public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts ofor groups thereof, which shall for the purposes of the Constitution, bedeemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State. After theCPresident issues an Order under Article 341 or 342, the said Order cannotbe amended, modified, added to or any caste or tribe deleted therefromby the State or by any court or tribunal. It is only the Parliament, whichcan enact a law to include or exclude from the lists of Scheduled Castesor Scheduled Tribes any caste, race or tribe. The power to alter theDPresidential Order lies only with Parliament and no other authority.Therefore, the notification issued by the President is final for all purposesand for all times except if modified by a law made by Parliament.

7. These provisions have been considered in a number of cases.We need not refer to all, except three Constitution Bench judgments ofEthis Court. The first Constitution Bench judgment was rendered in B.Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa[1]. In this case the issue waswhether a person belonging to the “Voddar” caste could claim that hebelonged to the “Bhovi” caste which had been notified as a ScheduledCaste. This Court held that normally it is not open for any court ortribunal to go into this question or to take evidence that “Voddar” casteFis the same as “Bhovi” caste. The Court held it to be a settled positionof law that it is not open to any court or tribunal to make any modificationin the Presidential Order by referring to evidence to show that thoughcaste “A” alone is mentioned in the order, caste “B” is also part of caste“A” and, therefore, must be deemed to be included in caste “A”. It wasGnoted by this Court that wherever there is one caste or one tribe havingmore than one name then in the Presidential Order, the other name(s) isnormally mentioned in brackets. Having held so, this Court, in the factsof the case, found that it was necessary to go into the question becauseit was not disputed that there was no caste known as “Bhovi” in the Mysore State before its reorganisation in 1956. Following observationsof the Court are relevant:

“.........The difficulty in the present case arises from the fact (whichwas not disputed before the High Court) that in the Mysore Stateas it was before the re-organisation of 1956 there was no casteknown as Bhovi at all. The Order refers to a scheduled casteknown as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 andtherefore it must be accepted that there was some caste whichthe President intended to include after consultation with theRajpramukh in the Order, when the Order mentions the casteBhovi as a scheduled caste. It cannot be accepted that thePresident included the caste Bhovi in the Order though there wasno such caste at all in the Mysore State as it existed before1956........”

Thereafter, this Court referred to the material placed before itand came to the conclusion that “Bhovi” caste was earlier known as the“Voddar” caste. It appeared that at a Conference of the Voddar Caste,held in July, 1944, it was resolved that the name of that caste be changedfrom “Voddar” to “Bhovi”. Eventually, the Government also acceptedthe said Resolution by passing an order.

The matter does not end here. The Government Order directedthat the community known as ‘Vodda’ would in future be called as ‘Boyi’in all Government communications and records. This Court alsoconsidered the issue of change in spellings wherein ‘Boyi’ was mentionedin the Government Order but the caste declared to be a Scheduled Castewas “Bhovi”. Furthermore, the Government Order refers to ‘Vodda’and not to “Voddar”. Dealing with the issue of different spellings theConstitution Bench held as follows:

“......Here again there is force in the contention that where thesame caste was spelt differently, the different spellings have beenprovided in the Order as illustrated already. But the same difficultywhich faced us in considering the question whether Voddar castewas meant by the caste Bhovi included in the Order arises whenwe consider the difference in spellings, for it is not in dispute thatthere was no caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as itexisted in 1950 when the Order was passed. As the Presidentcould not have included in the Order a non-existent caste it means A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe word ‘Bhovi’ relates to some caste in Mysore as it was before1956 and we have therefore to establish the identity of that casteand that can only be done by evidence. In that connection theHigh Court has held that ever since the Order of 1946, the Voddarcaste has been variously spelt as Boyi, Bovi and Bhovi in English,though the Kanada equivalent is one and the same. The HighBCourt therefore has not attached any importance to the change inthe English spelling in the peculiar circumstances of this case........”

8. The second Constitution Bench judgment is in the case ofBhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh[2] . In this case the appellant claimedthat he belonged to ‘Dohar’ caste, which was a sub-caste of ‘Chamar’Ccaste. The Constitution Bench held that an inquiry of such a kind wasnot permissible.

9. The third Constitution Bench judgment is in the case of theState of Maharashtra v. Milind[3]. In this case the notified ScheduledTribe was Halba/Halbi. The High Court, relying upon certain materialDheld that “Halba-Koshti” was included in “Halba” or Halbi”. This Courtheld that it was not permissible for the courts to do so. After discussingthe entire law, this Court held as follows:

“36. In the light of what is stated above, the following positionsemerge:E

1. It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any evidenceto decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part ofor group within any tribe or tribal community is included in thegeneral name even though it is not specifically mentioned in theentry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.F2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is noteven permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group ofany tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentionedin the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specificallymentioned in it.

G3. A notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342, specifyingScheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made byParliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal community or partof or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the 2 AIR 1965 SC 1557H3 (2001) 1 SCC 4

list of Scheduled Tribes issued under clause (1) of Article 342only by Parliament by law and by no other authority.

4. It is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals orany other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of ScheduledTribes specified in the notification issued under clause (1) of Article342.

5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in BhaiyaRam Munda v. Anirudh Patar[4]and Dina v. Narain Singh[5] didnot lay down law correctly in stating that the inquiry waspermissible and the evidence was admissible within the limitationsindicated for the purpose of showing what an entry in thePresidential Order was intended to be. As stated in Position (1)above no inquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in,in the matter.”

It would be pertinent to mention that in Milind’s case (supra), theConstitution Bench reaffirmed the ratio of the earlier two ConstitutionBench judgments.

10. It is thus obvious that the power of the Court is very limitedand the Court cannot modify, alter, add to or subtract from the PresidentialOrder or the notification issued by Parliament. At the same time, theCourt has to ensure that the order is read in such a manner that no casteor tribe, which is intended by President or by Parliament to be included,is actually excluded.

11. Mr. Shibashish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Statesubmits that in view of the judgment delivered in Milind’s case (supra),no court or authority has any jurisdiction to add any tribe or caste.According to him, since the tribe, which has been declared to be aScheduled Tribe is “Kulis”, the courts cannot give an interpretation thatpersons belonging to “Kuli” community are also entitled to the benefit ofbeing declared Scheduled Tribe. On the other hand Mr. V. Giri, learnedsenior counsel submits that it is but obvious that “Kulis” is only a pluralfor “Kuli” and not a separate caste.

12. Coming to the facts of the present case, the first Order whichhas been placed on record is the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,1950 and in Part VI the Schedule, dealing with the State of Odisha atItem No. 31, the tribe “Kulis” has been declared to be a Scheduled Tribe 4 (1970) 2 SCC 825

5 38 ELR 212; (1968) 8 DEC 329

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afor the entire State of Odisha. The next relevant document is theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956and in Part IX of Schedule I, dealing with the State of Odisha, “Kuli”has been declared to be a Scheduled Caste in Sambalpur district only.In the very same order in Part IX of Schedule III, “Kulis” continued tobe declared to be a Scheduled Tribe throughout the State of Odisha.B

13. The Parliament replaced the Presidential Orders by theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976.This Act was enacted for the purposes of inclusion and exclusion fromthe lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of certain castes andtribes. The Presidential Orders were replaced by this Act. In ScheduleCI at Part XIII dealing with the State of Odisha, the caste “Kuli” nolonger finds mention. In Schedule II at Part XII dealing with theScheduled Tribes, the tribe “Kulis” is notified to be a Scheduled Tribefor the whole of the State of Odisha. The Hindi version of this Orderdescribes the tribe “Kuli” (A2@) as a Scheduled Tribe.D

14. Persons belonging to the “Kuli” community have for long beenclaiming that they are part of the “Kulis” tribe and the High Court ofOdisha has always held that the term “Kulis” is nothing but a plural forthe term “Kuli” and has consistently held that “Kuli” are part and parcelof “Kulis” tribe. The first judgment in this regard was delivered inESebaram Meher v. The State of Orissa[6]. A Division Bench of theHigh Court held that there is no difference between the terms “Kuli”and “Kulis” because it was not disputed that there is no separatecommunity known as “Kulis” in the State of Odisha. This view wasfollowed in a large number of judgments including the judgment underappeal. The State of Odisha did not challenge the earlier judgments.FThose judgments became binding as far as the State of Odisha isconcerned.

15. Mr. Misra submits that since those judgments were renderedbefore the Constitution Bench judgment in Milind’s case (supra), theywere not challenged by the State of Odisha. This submission is whollyGwithout merit. In Milind’s case (supra) this Court has only reiteratedwhat was said in Basavalingappa’s case and in Bhaiya Lal’s case(supra) and many other cases. Therefore, we cannot accept theexplanation of the State in this regard.

16. We have even otherwise gone into the merits of the matter.HDespite pointed queries put by the Court, learned counsel for the appellant and the intervenor could not place any material before us to show thatthere is a separate community by the name “Kulis”. Time and again, thedocuments which were referred to were the documents relating to theperiod when “Kuli” were declared to be Scheduled Caste in the districtSambalpur whereas “Kulis” were declared to be a tribe in the entireState. The documents referred to by both the parties which are more inthe nature of reports, indicate that “Kuli” is a community of weaverswho were earlier forest dwellers. This community is engaged in theweaving of very coarse type of cloth. In none of the documents couldwe find any material to show that “Kuli” or “Kulis” are two differentcastes or tribes dealing with some different vocations. In all thedocuments they have been dealt with synonymously.

17. In 1962, in a study conducted by the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute, the following remarkswere made:

“The Kuli As a Tribe – The Kuli are fully integrated with thecaste hierarchy of the Hindu society. They accept the superiorityof the Brahman, have functional relationship with other castesand have a rigidly fixed caste occupation. They worship the godsof the Hindus and have no separate gods or goddesses. They donot take such food and indulge in such practices which are prohibitedfor Hindus. Rather they behave like high castes in this respect.

Conclusion – On the basis of the above findings the followingconclusions may be drawn:-

(1) There is no reason to justify the Kuli being treated as atribe.

(2) The Kuli have the status of a Scheduled Caste but in thatcapacity they occupy a position superior to otherScheduled Castes. A slight stigma of untouchability is nowattached to them but they are likely to be cleared up ofthis in near future.

Recommendation – It is therefore recommended that the Kulisshould be treated as a Scheduled Caste in both Sambalpur andBolangir districts. They may be descheduled after a period offive years by which time they would have achieved a statusequivalent to Other Backward Classes”.

(emphasis supplied)

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

18. In 1979, in another study, the following observations were made:

“The Kulistill now follow the traditional occupation of weaving.They have absolutely no other occupation except a few familieswho practice cultivation. 1% of the Kuli own land and in no caseBthe holding is more than 2 acres. The Kulishave been hard hitbecause they specialize in coarse and inferior type of clothingwhich is generally used by the poorer section. Moreover, handwoven cloth has gradually been replaced by the mill made cloth.As a result they live on hand to mouth economy.

xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx

C

It is therefore recommended that Kuli should neither betreated as Scheduled Caste nor as Scheduled Tribe inOrissa. However they should be provided with all the benefitsby the Govt. as an economically backward class.”

D

(emphasis supplied)

19. In a communication sent to the Government in 1979[7], it wasmentioned that the Census of 1971 distinguishes the “Kuli” caste from“Kuli” tribe in different districts as follows; ESl. No. Distict Population Kuli Caste Kuli Tribe 1. Sambalpur 3554 936 2. Balangir 522 657 3. Phulbani 10 172 F4. Kalahandi - 2 5. Ganjam - 40 6. Dhenkanal - 19 7. Mayurbhanj - 37 G8. Sundargarh - 29 4086 1892 Total H7 Vide Letter No.1489 dated 26.07.1979

20. In 1981, a communication was sent by the Commissioner andSecretary of the Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department of theGovernment of Odisha to the Union of India, making some proposals onbehalf of the State of Odisha for amendments to the list of ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes. In respect of “Kulis”, it was mentionedthat they are weavers by profession, mainly found in Bolangir, Sambalpurand Phulbani districts. It was submitted that they do not possess tribalcharacteristics and, therefore, may be deleted from the list of ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes.

21. Relying upon these documents, it is urged that the “Kulis” andthe “Kuli” are separate and members of the “Kuli” community cannotbe treated as “Kulis”. We fail to understand how this can be deducedfrom the aforesaid documents. In the statement showing the population,both communities are described as “Kuli” but while describing theoccupation, the members of the community are described as “Kulis”and it has been recommended that “Kuli” should neither be treated asScheduled Caste nor as Scheduled Tribe. This shows that there wasonly one community known as “Kuli”, which was treated as ScheduledCaste for some time in the district of Sambalpur but was treated asScheduled Tribe for the entire State of Odisha. In none of the documentsplaced before us by the State, there is any indication to show that thereis a separate caste or tribe by the name “Kulis”.

22. We may now refer to the 24[th] Report of the Commissioner forScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In this Report, prepared inDecember, 1977, dealing with the State of Odisha, it has been observed[8]as follows:

“.....In case of Orissa, the Kuli community which was earlierdeclared as Scheduled Caste in Sambalpur district has been deletedfrom the list as Kulis are already declared as Scheduled Tribesthroughout the State.....”

In this Report, it is clearly indicated that the “Kuli” communityhas 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 ScheduledCastes in Sambalpur district, would now fall in the category ofScheduled Tribe.

8 At Para 2.8, Page 16

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A23. The State has failed to show that there is any communitycaste 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 thenature of plural for “Kuli”. This becomes even more apparent from thevarious documents referred to above wherein the terms “Kulis” and“Kuli” have been used interchangeably and though the caste or tribe hasBbeen described as “Kuli”, the members of the community, when dealtwith together, have been described as “Kulis”. Furthermore, in the Hindiversion of the Amendment Act of 1976, the Scheduled Tribe has beendescribed as “Kuli” and not “Kulis”.

24. In Basavalingappa’s case, the Constitution Bench of thisCCourt held that caste “Bhovi” includes people of the “Voddar” castemainly on the ground that prior to reorganisation of the State of Mysore,there was no caste “Bhovi” and, therefore, the Presidential Order couldnot be set at naught by excluding what was intended to be included inthe list of Scheduled Castes. The present case is very similar. As heldDabove, the State has failed to place any material on record to show thatthere is any caste or tribe by the name “Kulis”. It is, therefore, apparentthat both in the Presidential Order and in the Act, the term “Kulis” wasused as plural for the term “Kuli”.

25. We are fully conscious of the limitations on the powers of thisECourt. We cannot add to alter or modify the notified list of SchedulesCastes and Scheduled Tribes. We are also aware that we cannot takeinto consideration any evidence in this regard. At the same time, we areof the considered view that we cannot give such an interpretation to aCaste or Tribe mentioned in the list of notified Scheduled Castes orScheduled Tribes which would have the effect of nullifying the intentionFof the Parliament. In the present case, earlier the President and laterParliament had included “Kulis” in the list of Scheduled Tribe. It hasbeen found that there is no community by the name “Kulis” in the Stateof Odisha. The only community is “Kuli”. If we do not include “Kuli” in“Kulis”, the net result would be that we would be deleting a Tribe fromGthe list of Scheduled Tribes. This also no Court or Tribunal is entitled to.We have to read the entries in the list in a manner which is consistentwith the intention of the Parliament. According to us, earlier the Presidentand later Parliament while using the term “Kulis” only intended it to beused as plural for the word “Kuli”. Any other interpretation would meanthat nobody would be able to take benefit of belonging to “Kulis” tribe.H

STATE OF ORISSA v. DASARATHI MEHER

26. Taking all the above facts into consideration, in the peculiarfacts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the term“Kulis” in the English version will include members of the “Kuli”community. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Application forintervention is also dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall standdisposed of.

Divya Pandey

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H