The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court took up a public interest litigation seeking a declaration that persons displaced from the Pakistan-Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (POJK) region since 1947 are entitled to the benefit of Scheduled Tribe status under the Constitution, and directed that the matter be listed for detailed hearing. The petitioner, a displaced person or representative, contended that individuals and families who migrated to the Union Territory as a result of Partition and subsequent conflicts have suffered prolonged disadvantage and marginalisation, and that their exclusion from the list of Scheduled Tribes results in denial of constitutional protections and affirmative action meant for socio-economically backward and historically discriminated communities. It was argued that the factual context of their displacement, cultural identity, and long-standing deprivation necessitate equitable classification as a Scheduled Tribe, and that a judicial declaration on the question would facilitate their access to reservation in education, employment, and other welfare measures.
During the preliminary hearing, the High Court examined the scope of the petition and noted that the matter raises significant legal and constitutional questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 366 and 342 of the Constitution, which define “Scheduled Tribes” and prescribe the process for specifying such tribes by notification. Counsel for the petitioner emphasised that displaced persons from POJK share cultural affinities with tribal communities recognised in Jammu & Kashmir, and highlighted the historical circumstances that resulted in their uprooting and subsequent socio-economic challenges. It was submitted that the absence of Scheduled Tribe status exacerbates their vulnerability and deprives them of opportunities available to other similarly placed groups.
Responding on behalf of the State and other respondents, counsel indicated that classification as a Scheduled Tribe is governed by statutory notifications and legislative procedures, and that any modification to include a new class of persons must adhere to constitutional mandates and involve a comprehensive process of consultation with relevant authorities and consideration of socio-anthropological data. The respondents contended that judicial declaration of Scheduled Tribe status for POJK displaced persons could have wide-ranging implications for reservation policy and administrative frameworks, and that such policy decisions ordinarily fall within the domain of the legislature and executive in consultation with constitutional bodies such as the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
The High Court, while reserving its detailed consideration, acknowledged that the petition raises substantial questions about equality, non-discrimination, and the objectives of affirmative action under the Constitution, and directed that the matter be listed for hearing with an opportunity for all parties to address the legal issues and factual records. The bench indicated that the Court will examine whether the displaced persons meet the criteria for tribal status, the constitutional limits of judicial intervention in classification matters, and the procedural requirements for amendment of the list of Scheduled Tribes. The High Court’s order to proceed with the PIL reflects judicial willingness to engage with complex socio-legal concerns affecting a community that has endured decades of displacement and uncertainty, subject to detailed arguments on law, policy, and constitutional principles. The case is now pending further hearings where these contentions will be examined comprehensively.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.