GS Paper 2

Context: A Group of Ministers (GoM) in Assam has submitted an interim report recommending Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for six communities—Ahom, Chutia, Moran, Matak, Koch-Rajbongshi, and the Tea Tribes. The recommendations aim to extend socio-economic protections while safeguarding the rights of existing ST populations.

Communities Proposed for ST Status

1. Ahom
2. Chutia
3. Moran
4. Matak
5. Koch-Rajbongshi
6. Tea Tribes

These groups have long demanded ST status due to historical deprivation and limited access to constitutional safeguards.

Key Recommendations of the Interim Report

A. Structural & Reservation Framework

1. Creation of a Three-Tier ST Structure

The report proposes restructuring Assam’s ST categories into:

• ST (Plains)
• ST (Hills)
• ST (Valley) – a new category

ST (Valley) would include:

• Tai Ahom
• Chutia
• Tea Tribes
• Koch-Rajbongshi (except those in undivided Goalpara)

2. Protection of Existing Quotas

• Current quotas for ST (Plains) and ST (Hills) will remain unchanged.
• A separate reservation roster, vacancy register, and quota must be created for ST (Valley) to avoid dilution of existing benefits.
• For central services, all notified STs—both old and newly added—will compete within one unified ST pool.

B. Cultural and Political Safeguards

1. Extension of Land Rights

• Until legal inclusion is completed, the six communities should receive interim land-related protections currently available to existing STs.

2. Cultural Oversight

• Their cultural practices, traditional institutions, and indigenous customs should fall under the Department of Indigenous and Tribal Faith and Culture.

3. Parliamentary Representation

• The two Lok Sabha constituencies covering Sixth Schedule areas should be permanently reserved for existing STs through a constitutional amendment, preventing political displacement.

How Communities Are Included in the ST List: Constitutional Procedure

1. State Proposal – State/UT submits a formal request to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA).
2. MoTA Scrutiny – Ministry reviews evidence, socio-cultural traits, and historical deprivation.
3. RGI Review – Registrar General of India conducts an ethnographic assessment.
4. NCST Recommendation – Proposal sent to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes for advice.
5. Union Cabinet Approval – MoTA prepares a Cabinet note seeking approval.
6. Parliamentary Amendment – Introduced as a Bill under Articles 341 & 342; passed by simple majority.
7. Presidential Notification – The President formally updates the ST list.

This process safeguards constitutional integrity while ensuring inclusive tribal recognition.

Conclusion

The GoM’s interim recommendations mark a significant step in addressing long-standing socio-political demands in Assam. By proposing a three-tier ST structure, protecting existing quotas, and outlining cultural safeguards, the report seeks to balance recognition of new communities while maintaining the rights of current ST groups.

Final inclusion will depend on completing the multi-stage constitutional process involving MoTA, RGI, NCST, Parliament, and presidential notification.

The incoming Chief Justice of India-designate Justice Surya Kant has placed the reduction of the Supreme Court’s mounting case backlog and revival of long-pending constitutional matters at the top of his reform agenda. With pendency touching 90,225 cases as of 22 November 2025—the highest in the Court’s history—the issue has assumed renewed national significance.

The data comes from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), a public dashboard under the e-Courts project that provides real-time statistics on case institution, disposal and pendency across all courts.

Why Case Pendency is Rising

1. Heavy Constitutional Docket

The Supreme Court hears a disproportionately large volume of Article 136 Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). The Law Commission has described India’s apex court as one of the world’s most overburdened because it entertains appeals on a far broader scale than comparable jurisdictions.

2. Bypassing High Courts

Digital filing, virtual hearings and the belief that the Supreme Court offers quicker relief have incentivised litigants to approach the apex court directly. This sidesteps High Courts, weakening the intended filtering mechanism envisioned in the constitutional scheme.

3. Understaffed Judiciary

Vacancies in the Supreme Court—often arising from delays in the Collegium–Government clearance cycle—reduce judicial strength and adversely impact disposal rates. The Department of Justice repeatedly highlights that even short periods of vacancy significantly slow case hearings.

4. Legacy and Structural Backlogs

Several constitutional, land, taxation and service matters have remained unresolved for decades. The primary reason is the irregular functioning of Constitution Benches, which require five or more judges under Article 145(3). Without regular sittings, related cases also remain stalled.

5. Procedural Burden

The Court faces frequent interim applications, review petitions, curative petitions and repeated listings that consume substantial judicial time. This procedural overload further delays final hearings.

Key Constitutional Provisions

• Article 136 – Special Leave Petition (SLP):
  A discretionary power enabling the Supreme Court to hear appeals against any judgment/order of any court or tribunal (except military courts).
• Constitution Bench:
  A bench of five or more judges, constituted to interpret substantial constitutional questions.

Way Forward

• Regular 7-judge and 9-judge Constitution Benches:
  Big-ticket constitutional issues must be settled to unlock thousands of pending connected cases.
• Strengthen High Courts:
  Encourage litigants to approach High Courts first, restoring their constitutional role and reducing the Supreme Court’s admission burden.
• Accelerate Appointments:
  Streamline the Collegium-Government consultation timelines to prevent vacancies and keep benches fully functional.
• Institutional Mediation:
  Justice Surya Kant has termed mediation a potential “game-changer”—particularly for civil, commercial and family disputes—helping reduce case inflow.

The urgent need for systemic reforms makes pendency reduction central to restoring the Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate as a court of law rather than a court of routine appeals.