The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has directed the Central Government and the Union Territory administration to respond to a plea challenging the inclusion of Pahari-speaking people in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list. The petitioners argue that the inclusion of the Pahari ethnic group, along with other communities such as the Paddari Tribe, Kohli, and Gadda Brahmin, was done without sufficient empirical data or justification, based merely on linguistic criteria.
Key Points:
- Petitioners’ Argument:
- The petitioners contend that the inclusion of these communities in the ST list lacks a solid empirical basis and could lead to an unfair distribution of reservation benefits. They emphasize that the criteria for being listed as a Scheduled Tribe should involve comprehensive ethnological, cultural, and socio-economic assessments rather than just linguistic traits.
- Court’s Directive:
- The High Court has asked the Centre and the UT administration to provide detailed responses, explaining the rationale behind the inclusion of these communities. The court’s directive seeks to ensure that the inclusion process adheres to constitutional and legal standards, ensuring fairness and equity in the reservation system.
- Background on Inclusion Criteria:
- The process of adding a community to the Scheduled Tribes list involves recommendations from the state or union territory government, scrutiny by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, and approval by the Registrar General of India and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. Only after these steps is a bill passed in Parliament to amend the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
- Impact on Reservation Benefits:
- The inclusion of new communities in the ST list has significant implications for the distribution of reservation benefits. The petitioners argue that such inclusions should not dilute the benefits intended for existing ST communities and must be based on rigorous criteria to ensure genuine socio-economic upliftment.
This case highlights the ongoing debates about the criteria for ST inclusion and the need for transparent, data-driven decisions in expanding reservation benefits. The High Court’s intervention seeks to uphold these principles, ensuring that any changes to the ST list are made with careful consideration and thorough justification.