Uttarakhand High Court Flags Misuse of ST Certificates Based on Residency in Tribal Areas
- MAHI SINHA
- 07 May 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court raises a critical legal question on whether Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificates should be issued based solely on residency in tribal areas or limited to individuals from officially notified tribal communities. Learn about the implications of this case and what Article 342 of the Constitution says.
Background of the Case: Itika Pande vs. State of Uttarakhand
In a recent hearing of Itika Pande and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, the Uttarakhand High Court sought clarification from the State Government regarding the eligibility criteria for issuing Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificates.
The primary concern was whether individuals are receiving ST certificates merely based on residing in a tribal area, or only if they belong to notified tribal communities recognized by the Constitution of India.
Key Legal Issue: Community Membership vs. Geographic Location
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal presided over the case and raised concerns about the standards being followed in determining ST status. The petitioners claimed they were eligible for ST certificates simply because they lived in the Jaunsar region—a historically tribal area.
However, the Court questioned this reasoning, noting that ST status is constitutionally granted to specific notified communities, not to all residents of a region with tribal history.
Legal Framework: What Article 342 of the Indian Constitution Says
Under Article 342, the President of India, in consultation with the Governor of a state, has the authority to officially notify communities as Scheduled Tribes.
In a notification dated June 24, 1967, the Government recognized the following five communities in the region as STs:
The Court emphasized that merely living in areas like Jaunsar does not entitle one to ST certification unless the individual belongs to one of these recognized tribes.
Court’s Stance: Adherence to Notified Communities is Mandatory
The bench firmly rejected the argument that geographical residence alone qualifies someone for ST status. It reiterated that the designation is exclusive to members of the five communities recognized in the 1967 order. Granting certificates beyond these groups violates the intent and letter of Article 342.
Next Steps in the Case
The High Court described the issue as “serious” and directed the State to provide data on the number of ST certificates issued based on residency and explain the criteria used for such issuance. The next hearing in this important constitutional matter is scheduled for May 16, 2025.
Conclusion: Upholding Constitutional Integrity in ST Certification
This case underlines the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates while issuing ST certificates. Misinterpretation or misuse of ST status can dilute the benefits meant for genuinely disadvantaged communities. As the Court delves deeper into the issue, the outcome could set a precedent for similar cases across India.
