IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SLP no. B.K. MANISH in-person Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh & Anr Respondent SUMMARY This petition is preferred to challenge partially the ruling of Chhattisgarh High Court in WP (PIL) 23 of 2012, delivered on 12 March, 2013. In the original petition the petitioner had questioned unconstitutional functioning of Tribes Advisory Council, an empowered body for safeguarding interests of scheduled tribes, provided in para 4 of Fifth Schedule to The Constitution, primarily by challenging the constitutional validity of Chhattisgarh Tribal Advisory Council Rules, 2006under provisions of which TAC functions. Petitioner had contended that TAC is functioning unconstitutionally insofar its agenda is being set by the Chief Minister and executive decisions being taken therein in direct contravention of para 4(2) of the Fifth Schedule which stipulates that TAC is to advise on such matters as referred to it by the Governor. The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled in the case that49.

of 2013

Petitioner-

(c) The Governor while framing the rules under paragraph 4(3) of

fifth schedule does not act in his discretion. The Chhattisgarh Tribes Advisory Council Rules, 2006 framed by the state government and authenticated in the name of Governor are sufficient compliance of law; (d) The Rules do not violate any provision of the Constitution and are intra vires. Abovementioned portion of the judgement is challenged hereby on the grounds of both merit, and procedural lapses. High Court relied upon various rulings of Supreme Court related to general scope and extent of powers of Governor, most notably on 1974 Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab , ignoring the oral and written submission from the petitioner on 1997 rulings of Supreme Court ( Bhuri Nath Vs. State of J&K, as also Samata Vs. State of A.P.) wherein it had clearly laid down that functions of Governor under Fifth Schedule are independent of aid

and advice of council of ministers. Despite petitioner appearing and arguing inperson the Chhattisgarh High Court did not mention either this status or his arguments, oral or written, in the Order Sheet. After two rounds of written pleadings the division bench led by The Chief Justice dismissed the petition on merit in absence of petitioner, without even once giving him the opportunity to counter the arguments of Union & State Govt. Further, The High Court virtually thrust upon the petitioner a hostile lawyer by documenting the Amicus Curie as appearing for the petitioner despite stated apprehension by the petitioner in-person; it is to be noted that Amicus Curie in his written submission negated the principal contention of the petitioner. Honble Supreme Court has obviously been worried over the deepening threat to life and culture of adivasis in the country even as confusion over interpretation of protective constitutional-statutory provisions like fifth schedule has denied. Tribal Rights discourse has oscillated from socio-political vision of tribal development on one end to the constitutional-statutory provisions on the other end ignoring the fact that theres an intermediate form called administrative philosophy which is the real bone of contention. Governments both provincial and central are stuck with the philosophy developed in Constituent Assembly while the activists have built upon the Panchsheel Policy a whole new plank, portions of which (e.g.- discretionary powers of Governor under Scd.V) have even been validated by the Supreme Court following doctrine of progressive interpretation. Present petition implores this august Supreme Court to tackle this unsettled question of law for good by discarding the old philosophy and to formally establish the new philosophy, in a holistic manner.