SH. HEIKHAM SURCHANDRA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus THE REPRESENTATIVE OF "LOIS" KAKCHING, MANIPUR (A SCHEDULED CASTE UPLIFT BODY) AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 09-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SH. HEIKHAM SURCHANDRA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF "LOIS" KAKCHING, MANIPUR 
(A SCHEDULED CASTE UPLIFT BODY) AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orde1; 1950 : 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1956: 
Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tlibes (Amendment) Act, 1976 : 
Scheduled Caste--Issuance of caste status certificate "Lois" community 
B 
c 
in State of Manipur---Notification of President declaring "Lois" as Scheduled D 
Caste-Earlier "Lois" of eight villages claiming themselves to be Scheduled 
Caste-Three decades thereafter, 2500 certificates issued inf avour of residents 
of Kakching and other village~Agitation by "Lois" of initial eight villages 
against issuance of caste status certificates to residents of other village~om
mission appointed by the State Govemment reported that "Lois" of initial 
eight villages were Scheduled Castes and the 2500 certificates issued later were E 
invalid-Govemment directed that certificates issued later should not be acted 
upon-Held, though the High Cowt was right that until the amendment to 
the list has duly been made, the Lois would be entitled to the status of 
Scheduled Castes, before issuance of certificate of status the competent officer 
- should enquire whether the applicant is subjected to the disabilities which the F 
Scheduled Castes have been suffening-All those who satisfy these criteria 
alone are entitled to the issuance of certificates until the amendment is duly 
made by Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution. High Court was, 
however, not right in its view that though the Certificates issued by the 
Commissioner including the 2500 certificate holders were valid, they would G 
be subject to the law made by the Parliament-Anyone who claims status of 
Scheduled Caste should satisfy the criteria until the amendment is duly made 
by Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution and an inquiry should 
be conducted in that behalf-Articles 15(2), 17 and 46 of the Constitution 
furnish the unimpeachable historical evidence of disabilities to which 
Scheduled Castes are subjected to. 
H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
AJticle 341-Scheduled Caste-Presidential Notification-Inclusion/ex-
clusion of caste from-"lois" CommU11ity in State of Manipur-Commission 
appointed by State Governmellt found that some "Lois" were not scheduled 
B caste and certificates issued to them were invalid-Held, until the Presidential 
notification issued under Anicle 341 ( 1) of the Constitution is modified by 
appropriate amendment by Parliament i11 exercise of the power under AJticle 
341 (2) of the Constitution, it is final and conclusive and it cannot be added 
to any caste or subtracted by any action either by the State Government or by 
a coult on adduction of evidence-State Government would furnish to the 
C President of India the repolt submitted by the Commission, and all other 
material for approp1iate action by the Central Government by laying before 
the Parliament to effect necessary amendment under Anicle 341(2). 
r 
B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, [196S] 1 SCR 316; Bhaiyalal 
D v. Harikishan Singh, [1965] 2 SCR 877; Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of 
Tripura, [1990] 1 SCR 576; Pa/ghat Ji/la Thandon Samudhaya Samrakshna 
Samityi v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 1 SCC 357 and Kumari Madhuri Patel & 
Ors. v.Additional Commissioner Tribal Development & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 
241, relied on. 
E 
Nityanand Shanna &Anr. v. State of Bihar& Ors., JT (1996) 2 SC 117 
F 
and Valsamma Paulv. Cochin University& Ors., JT (1996) 1SC57, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14517 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.95 of the Assam High 
Court in C.R. No. 800 of 1994. 
R.F. Nariman, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Ashok Kumar Sharma, N. Sud-
G hakaran, S.K. Bhattacharya, L.K. Paonam, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari and Mrs. 
Sushma Suri for the appearing parties. 
K.H. Nobin Singh and Mrs. S. Janani for Caveator in C.A. No. 
14518-24/96. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
j' 
i 
I • 
HEIKHAM SURCHANDRA SINGH v. TIIEREPRESENTATIVEOF "LOIS" KAKCHING 373 
Leave granted. 
A 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the common judgment of 
the Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati, Imphal Bench made 
on November 17, 1995 in Civil Rule
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.