The Manipur High Court recently granted permission for an application to challenge a judgment by a single judge. This judgment had directed the State government to consider the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) List.

The division bench consisting of Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh and Justice A Guneshwar Sharma expressed the view that it would be fair and appropriate to assess the appeal on its merits to ensure a thorough and fair resolution of the contentious matter.

"We believe it is fair and appropriate to thoroughly examine the related appeal on its merits for a just and proper resolution of the issues raised by the respective counsel after a careful review of the materials contained in the record of the connected writ appeal," stated the Court.

The All Manipur Tribal Union and other organizations applied for permission to file an appeal against the March 27 order of former Acting Chief Justice MV Muralidharan. They contended that the groups advocating for the rights of the tribal community were not originally involved in the writ petition where this directive was issued.

They argued that Justice Muralidharan's judgment has had a detrimental impact on the fundamental and constitutional rights of the 34 recognized tribes in Manipur.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who represented the five applicants, put forth the argument that granting Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to the Meitei community, which is economically, politically, and educationally advanced, might result in them securing a significant share of ST reserved seats, including those in the Legislative Assembly.

Furthermore, it was emphasized that a significant portion of land in the hilly regions is owned by tribal communities. Granting ST status to the Meitei community could potentially lead to concerns that they may attempt to acquire land and other resources in these hilly areas.

In opposition to Colin Gonsalves' arguments, Additional Advocate General M Devananda contended that the single-judge's decision had simply instructed the State to provide recommendations for the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) list. The State further explained that there is a comprehensive and time-consuming process for such inclusions, and the application seeking permission to challenge the single-judge's ruling was based on groundless concerns. The State asserted that this was done with the intention of delaying the implementation of the directive.

The original petitioners, in whose case the single-judge issued the directive, contended that the judgment did not adversely affect the rights of the groups representing the tribal community.

Nevertheless, the Court expressed its inclination to grant the requested permission to the applicants and instructed the registry to schedule the hearing for the admission of the connected appeal.

In May of this year, the Supreme Court had strongly criticized the High Court for its March 27 decision, as it had led to widespread violence in the State, including alarming crimes against women.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala expressed that the judgment was "factually incorrect" and contrary to the principles established by the Supreme Court's Constitution bench rulings concerning the classification of communities as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. However, the top court did not issue a stay order on the decision, as it was informed that an appeal had been filed against Justice Muralidharan's ruling.

Significantly, Justice Muralidharan was transferred to the Calcutta High Court earlier this month, and Delhi High Court judge Justice Siddharth Mridul assumed office as the permanent Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court on Friday.