Manipur High Court agrees to hear appeal against judgment on inclusion of Meitei community in ST list

The Manipur High Court recently allowed an application seeking permission to challenge a single-judge judgment which had directed the State government to consider including the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) List. [All Manipur Tribal Union v Shri Mutum Churamani Meetei].The division bench of Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh and Justice A Guneshwar Sharma said it would be “just and proper” to consider the appeal on merits for proper adjudication of the contentious issue. "We are of the view that it will be just and proper to consider the connected appeal on merit for a just and proper adjudication of the issues raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties after examining the materials available in the record of the connected writ appeal," the Court said. All Manipur Tribal Union and other groups sought leave to file an appeal against former acting Chief Justice MV Muralidharan’s March 27 order. It was submitted that the groups associated with the rights of the tribal community were not a party to the writ petition in which the direction was passed..It was argued that Justice Muralidharan’s judgment has adversely affected the fundamental rights as well as the constitutional rights of the 34 recognized Tribes of Manipur. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the five applicants, argued that the Meitei community being dominant and advanced economically, politically and educationally will grab a majority of the ST reserved seats including in the Legislative Assembly.It was also submitted that most of the land in the hills are owned by the tribals and if the Meitei community gets ST status they will attempt to grab the land and other resources in the hill areas..Opposing Gonsalves’ submissions, the Additional Advocate General M Devananda argued that the single-judge had merely directed the State to submit recommendation for inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST list. Submitting there was a lengthy process for such inclusion, the State said the application seeking leave to challenge the single-judge judgment was based on unfounded apprehension and intended to delay its implementation. The original petitioners - in whose case the direction was passed by the single-judge, argued that no rights of the groups representing the tribal community were adversely affected by the judgment.However, the Court said it was inclined to grant the permission sought by the applicants and directed the registry to list the connected appeal for admission hearing..In May this year, the Supreme Court had pulled up the High Court for its March 27 decision, since it had triggered large-scale violence in the State including horrific crimes against women.A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala had said that the judgment was "factually incorrect" and also against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court Constitution bench judgments as regards classification of communities as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.However, the top court had stopped short of staying the decision as it was informed that the appeal had been filed against Justice Muralidharan’s decision.Pertinently, Justice Muralidharan was transferred to Calcutta High Court this month and Delhi High Court judge Justice Siddharth Mridul took oath as the permanent Chief Justice of Manipur High Court on Friday. .Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves and Wungpam Yangya represented the applicantsAdditional Advocate General M. Devananda and Advocates Jyotsana and Armananada represented the State governmentSenior Advocate M. Hemchandra with Advocate Ajoy Pebam and Senior Advocate N Jotendro with Advocate Md. Abdul Baqee Khan represented the private respondents [Read Order]