New Delhi, Mar 24: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions to include the Denotified Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) as a distinct category in the upcoming national Census.
Observing that such classifications fall within the domain of government policy and “not justiciable”, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition and permitted petitioner Dakxinkumar Bajrange to make a representation before the registrar general and census commissioner of India.
The PIL sought a mandate for the census commissioner to ensure that members of denotified nomadic tribes are specifically identified during the population enumeration of the Census.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioner, said the plea was not seeking Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, but rather statistical visibility.
“Since the (Criminal Tribes) Act is no longer there… there has to be some way so that they are not left behind and out of the Census,” Dave said.
The CJI questioned the intent of the litigation, saying “We are a unique country. Instead of making a classless society, we are here to make more classes now.”
He said that if an inquiry is made then the source of PIL can be traced and it may be influenced by those from outside the country.
“These are very calculated moves… not very innocuous things before us. This plea is a very deep-rooted move to divide the society. These are not coming from India and if we hold an inquiry, we will see where it is all coming from,” the CJI said.
Justice Bagchi said the Census is a matter for experts.
“This is an expert policy decision. We have to see what classification they (the government) make for you,” the judge said.
The bench said the petitioner had submitted a representation to the authorities only a month prior to approaching the court.
“In our considered opinion, classification or sub-classification during the enumeration process essentially falls in the policy domain, for which a decision has to be taken by the competent authority. It is not a justiciable issue,” the bench said.
While refusing to entertain the PIL, the bench disposed it by granting the petitioners the liberty to pursue their grievances before the appropriate government authorities.
