Summary
The Court rejected claims that laws require a Governor’s affirmative notification to operate in Fifth Schedule areas and that non-Tribals cannot settle or vote there. Otherwise applicable Central and State laws extend to Scheduled Areas unless excluded or modified under the constitutional framework. Residence rights remain subject to lawful reasonable restrictions, and electoral eligibility and reservations follow the governing statutes and Constitution. The appeal concerning Sundargarh was dismissed without costs.
Issues
- Whether Central and State laws apply to Scheduled Areas without a notification affirmatively extending them.
- Whether Scheduled Area status alone excludes non-Tribals from residence or voting.
- Whether all parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in a Scheduled Area must be reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
Provisions considered
- Fifth Schedule, paragraph 5, Constitution of IndiaOtherwise applicable laws operate in Scheduled Areas without affirmative extension. The Governor may exclude or modify their application under subparagraph (1), and make regulations under the separate procedure in subparagraphs (2)–(5). These powers remain subject to fundamental rights. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Article 19(1)(e) and (5), Constitution of IndiaCitizens’ right to reside and settle also applies to Scheduled Areas. It remains subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law; the Schedule itself does not establish the blanket prohibition on non-Tribal settlement asserted by the appellant. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Articles 330 and 332, Constitution of IndiaReservations for Scheduled Tribes must follow the constitutional provisions. Scheduled Area status does not require every Lok Sabha or Assembly constituency within that area to be reserved. (¶ 17)
- Section 19, Representation of the People Act, 1950Electoral registration turns on statutory eligibility and ordinary residence. An otherwise eligible non-Tribal ordinarily residing in the Scheduled Area cannot be denied voting rights merely on that ground. (¶ 16)
- Section 92, contrasted with Fifth Schedule paragraph 5(1), Government of India Act, 1935The repealed provision required affirmative extension of laws to excluded areas. Its different wording could not support importing that requirement into the present constitutional framework. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Held
- The Governor’s power to direct that a particular law shall not apply presupposes that otherwise applicable Central and State enactments already extend to the Scheduled Area. No general requirement of prior affirmative notification exists. Laws applicable throughout Odisha therefore continued to apply in Sundargarh’s Scheduled Area unless specifically excluded or modified in accordance with paragraph 5. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11, 13)
- The Federal Court authorities concerning section 92 of the Government of India Act did not assist the appellant: that repealed provision expressly required notification before laws operated in excluded areas, whereas paragraph 5 proceeds on the opposite premise. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao governed the present constitutional interpretation. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The Governor’s Fifth Schedule powers do not override fundamental rights. Non-Tribal citizens retain Article 19(1)(e) rights in Scheduled Areas, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law under Article 19(5). The Court rejected the asserted blanket rule that every non-Tribal resident is an unlawful occupant. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The Representation of the People Act, 1950 applies in the Scheduled Area. Every otherwise eligible voter ordinarily residing in a constituency is entitled to electoral registration and voting irrespective of being non-Tribal. The Delimitation Act, 2002 also applies; Articles 330 and 332 do not require all constituencies in a Scheduled Area to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which otherwise extended to the relevant territory, did not require an affirmative gubernatorial extension to apply in the Scheduled Area. In the absence of an exclusion notification under paragraph 5(1), it applied there. The High Court correctly dismissed the petition; the appeal was dismissed without costs. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs. Rejection of the claimed blanket restrictions on laws, non-Tribal residence and voting, and universal constituency reservation upheld.