THE Manipur High Court has ordered deletion of a paragraph from a March 2023 order that urged the State to consider including the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list saying the paragraph was in conflict with the Supreme Court’s constitution bench stance. The March 27, 2023 directive, believed to be a catalyst for ethnic unrest that claimed over 200 lives, was rescinded by a single judge bench of Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu during a review petition hearing on Wednesday. The contentious paragraph from last year’s verdict, instructing the State to expedite consideration of Meitei community inclusion, was deemed for deletion.

 

The paragraph of the last year verdict stated the State Government “shall consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes list, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks” from the date of receipt of the order. Justice Gaiphulshillu’s ruling on February 21 emphasised the necessity of removing the directive, pointing to the Government of India’s stipulated procedure for Scheduled Tribe list amendments. Justice Gaiphulshillu said, “Accordingly, the direction given at para no. 17(iii) needs to be deleted and is ordered accordingly for deletion of the para no. 17(iii) of the judgment and order dated March 27, 2023...”. The High Court’s detailed 19-page verdict underlined the legislative limitations on judicial interference concerning Scheduled Tribe classifications, as outlined by a constitution bench ruling in November 2000.

 

“Courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe or subtribe is included in any one of the Entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 and 342 particularly so when in Clause (2) ofthe said Article, itisexpresslystatedthat said orders cannot be amended orvariedexceptbylaw made byParliament” the verdictof Supreme Court's Constitution bench in November 2000 said. The constitution bench had elucidated that courts should not overstep their jurisdiction in determining such categorisations. Following the eruption of violence post the March 27 order,aseries of petitions, including challenges to the high court directive, were presented to the Supreme Court. The apex court, on May 17 of the same year, denounced the high court's directive as“obnoxious” and considered stayingtheorder due to its perceived inaccuracies. A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachudhadsaid,“Iwill tell you (lawyers) one thing thatthehighcourt orderwas incorrect... I think we have to stay the order of the high court.”