The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Union of India to include Denotified Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) as a distinct category in the upcoming national Census. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that matters regarding population enumeration and classification fall strictly within the domain of government policy and are “not justiciable.”
While disposing of the petition, the Court granted the petitioner, Dakxinkumar Bajrange, the liberty to pursue the grievance by making 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 process. The petitioner argued that since the repeal of the discriminatory Criminal Tribes Act, these communities require statistical visibility to ensure they are not “left behind” in national planning and welfare schemes.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that the plea was not seeking Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for the DNTs. Instead, the focus was on “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 submitted before the bench.
The bench expressed strong reservations regarding the intent and the broader implications of the litigation. Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the necessity of creating further societal divisions through such classifications.
“We are a unique country. Instead of making a classless society, we are here to make more classes now,” the CJI remarked.
The CJI further suggested that such litigations might be influenced by external interests. “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 bench observed.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the technicalities of the Census are handled by specialists rather than the judiciary. “This is an expert policy decision. We have to see what classification they (the government) make for you,” the judge noted.
The Court also pointed out a procedural lapse, noting that the petitioner had approached the judiciary only a month after submitting a representation to the authorities, not allowing the government sufficient time to respond.
The Court held that the judiciary cannot interfere in the executive’s prerogative to decide the categories for enumeration.
“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 stated.
The petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioners are free to approach the appropriate government authorities to address their grievances.
