Evanlangki-E-Rymbai Vs Jaintia Hills District Council and Others

CASE BRIEF

Petitioner- Evanlangki-e-rymbai

Respondent- Jaintia Hills District and others

Decided on: 28.03.2006

Statues Referred:

United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Act,1959 – section 3.

Constitution of India- Article 14, Article 15, Article 16, Article 25, Article 26, Article 29.

FACTS:

1. The appeals by special leave for present case are directed against the common judgment and order of Guhati High Court dated 21^st July 2003, wherein the high court dismissed the writ petitions filed by appellants before Supreme Court.
2. In both the writ petitions the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 has been challenged.
3. The notice dated August 28, 2001 issued by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council, Jowai declaring the programme for elections of Dolloi in the Jowai Elaka and also notice dated September 4, 2001 issued by the Secretary, Executive Committee, Jaintia Hills District Council Jowai; both the notices were also challenged by petitioner.
4. The appellants contend that exclusion of Christians from contesting the election is in violation of Articles 14,15,16 of the Constitution of India since they were excluded on the ground of religion.
5. The High Court negatived the contention and held that the Executive Committee in exercise pf its delegated powers can issue such a notice for public appointment by election of Dolloiship in Elaka Jowai in the absence of rules, regulations or enactments providing for such election and appointment.
6. The High Court, further proceeded to consider the submission urged before them and in doing so, high court noticed Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and ultimately concluded that there was no breach of Articles 14,15,16 of the Constitution of India and in fact it protected the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
7. The appellants in appeals before Supreme Court have challenged the correctness of the decision of High Court.

ISSUE:

Whether the exclusion of Christians from contesting the post of Dolloi ; violating the Articles 14,15,16 of Constitution of India?

CONTENTIONS BY PARTIES:

Appellant’s Arguments:

1. Prohibition against contesting for the post of Dolloi on the ground of religion ex – facie amounted to discrimination on the ground of religion.
2. It is sufficed to say that Article 15 of Indian Constitution may not have any application in the instant case as the discrimination forbidden is only such discrimination as is based, inter alia, on the ground that a person belongs to a particular religion.
3. Mainly excluded only on the base of religion.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Learned council appearing for respondents submitted that there is no violation of Articles 14,15,16 of Constitution of India since reasonable classification is permissible in law and the exclusion of Christians from contesting the election is not only on the ground of religion, but on the ground that they are unable to perform religious functions of the office of Dolloi.
2. The provisions only serve to conserve the tribal culture which itself is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 29 of Constitution of India, as a result they enjoy the protection of Article 29.
3. Emphasized the use of words “on the ground of religion”. Thus if a citizen is discriminated against on ground “only of religion”. In present case, the exclusion is on the account of the admitted fact that a Christian cannot perform the religious duty of a Dolloi.

JUDGEMENT:

The Apex Court’s bench comprising of B.P, Singh and Arun Kumar held the following:

It was observed that the Section 3 of 1959 Act provides provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder all elections and appointments of chiefs and headmen shall be in accordance with the existing customs prevailing in Elaka concerned.

The fact that the Dolloi of in Elaka Jowai is required to perform both administrative as well as religious functions as prevalent custom is not disputed.

Therefore, reason for the exclusion of Christians from participating in elections are neither arbitrary nor reasonable. The Apex Court therefore, conclude agreeing with the High Court that Section 3(1) of the Act of 1959 as also the notifications impugned in the Writ Petitions cannot be stuck down on the ground of violation of Articles 14,15,16 of the Constitution of India.

Adding to the statement, the bench also forwarded that having found the challenge to be impugned provisions and notifications was not sustainable on the grounds of violation of Articles 14,15,16 ; it was not necessary to deal with the issues related to Articles 25,26 and 29 of the Constitution of India.

In the result the appeals failed and were dismissed. Supreme Court hence, held and fovoured the judgement of Guhati High Court.

RULE OF LAW:

The legal provision which was under perusal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was the proof of concerning the constitutional validity of Articles 14,15,16 on religion.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion it could be said that Supreme court through its judgement has laid before the citizens to prove the authenticity for violation of their fundamental rights as to any other legal laws prevailing in society. It also depicts that for appeals, understanding the basic structure of constitution of India is necessary for the legal application of it.