EWANLANGKI-E-RYMBAI versus JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 28-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

EW ANLANGKI-E-RYMBAI 
v. 
JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS. · 
MARCH 28, 2006 
'[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.) 
United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and 
Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959: Section 3(1). 
A 
B 
Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council-Election ofDol/oi-ln £/aka C 
Jowai-Section 3(1) provided that all elections and appointments of Chiefs 
and Headmen shall be in accordance with the existing customs prevailing in 
·the £/aka concerned-Constitutional validity of-Christians were excluded 
from contesting election to the post of Dol/oi-High Court upheld the 
constitutional validity of S. 3(1) holding that there was a custom prevalent D 
for a long time to the effect that the "Chief", namely, the Dolloi, must perform 
ad1ninistrative as well as religious duties-Correctness of-Held: The ground 
for exclusion of Christians is not solely on the ground of religion, but. on 
account of the admitted fact that a Christian cannot perform the religious 
June/ions attached to the office of Dolloi-Such duties cannot be bifurcated 
by appointing one other person to perform the religious functions only-The E 
reason is neither unreasonable nor arbitra~Hence, by excluding Christiam 
from coniesting the post of Dolloi, Articles 14, 15 and 16 are not violated-
Constitutiona/ validity of S. 3(1) upheld-Constitution of India, Art. 14, 15 
and 16. 
The appellant, a Christian by faith, and a member of the Jaintia F 
Scheduled Tribe filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging 
the constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of the United Khasi Jaintia Hills 
Autonomous District (Appointment ·and Succession of Chiefs and 
Hea.dmen) Act, 1959 and also the notice issued by the Jaintia Hills 
Autonomous District Council declaring the programme for the election G 
of Dolloi in Elaka Jowai. Section 3 of the Act provided that all elections 
and appointments of Chiefs and Headmen shall be in accordance with the 
existing customs prevailing in the Elaka concerned. Jowai District was an 
autonomou.s District to which the provisions of the Sixth Schedule. of the 
497 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A Constitution of India applied. The Dolloi performed Administrative as well as 
religious functions and a Christian could not perform the religious functions 
which were performed by the Dolloi. 
The High Court upheld Section 3 of the Act holding that there was a 
custom prevalent for a long period which was invariably practiced to the effect 
B that the "Chief', namely, the Dolloi must perform administrative as well as 
religious duties. The High Court also held that there was no breach of Articles 
14 to 16 of the Constitution of India in the exclusion of Christians from 
contesting election to the post of Dolloi. Hence the appeals. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is the tribal custom of the Elaka that the Dolloi of the 
Elaka Jowai must perform both the administrative and religious functions 
of his office. The office of Dolloi with its dual functions, administrative 
and religious, is a part of the tribal religion and culture, governed by 
D custom since time immemorial. It logically follows that the Dolloi must 
be one who is conversant with the indigenous religious practices of the 
inhabitants of the Elaka. He must be one who should be able to lead the 
people of the Elaka in the religious ceremonies according to their custom, 
and must also be competent to perform the rituals, practices, poojas, 
ceremonies etc. which he is required to perform as a duty attached to his 
E office. A Christian cannot perform the indigenous religious functions which 
a Dolloi is required to perform, apart from his administrative functions. 
By long standing custom, the Dolloi must perform both administrative and 
religious functions, and such duties cannot be bifurcated by appointing 
one other to perform the religious functions only. There is no such custom 
F prevalent in the Elaka. In its long history, such a thing happened only 
twice, and on both occasions there was a public outcry resulting in 
dismissal of the Dolloi in one case and his resignation in the other. The 
custom cannot be said to be discontinued or destroyed by such aberrations. 
The High Court has also noticed the judicial recognition given to the 
customary practice in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills that a Dolloi cannot be 
G a Christian. [509-G; 510-A-E[ 
Edwingson Bareh v. State of Assam, AIR (1966) S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.