THE HINDU | Tribal Rights + Minority Rights + Majoritarian Politics
🌿 The Majoritarian Shadow over Adivasi Identity, Faith & Rights
Author: Brinda Karat (Senior Leader, CPI-M) | Context: The "Janjati Sanskritik Samagam" conclave in Delhi — attended by thousands of Adivasis — on the 150th anniversary of Birsa Munda, backed by JSM and RSS affiliates with Union Home Minister Amit Shah as chief guest.
📋 Syllabus:GS-1: Salient features of Indian Society, Diversity of India; Role of women and women's organisations, population and associated issuesGS-2: Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections; Issues relating to the development and management of Social SectorGS-2: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors
🎯 Why in News? The Janjati Suraksha Manch (JSM) and Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram (both RSS affiliates) held a large conclave — the "Janjati Sanskritik Samagam" — in Delhi, demanding the delisting of Christian-converted Adivasi communities from Scheduled Tribe (ST) lists. With Union Home Minister Amit Shah as chief guest giving it a quasi-official character, the event has triggered deep constitutional, legal and political debates about Adivasi identity, religious freedom, and tribal rights.
⚡ Core Argument
The JSM's campaign to delist Christian-converted Adivasis from ST status is constitutionally flawed. Unlike Scheduled Castes (SC), neither the Indian Constitution nor the law links Scheduled Tribe (ST) identity to religion. The Patna High Court itself confirmed this in 1963. The JSM's "ghar wapasi" campaign is a cooption strategy to bring Adivasis under the Hindutva umbrella, erasing the distinctiveness of Adivasi animist faith. By invoking Birsa Munda's name — a leader who fought both colonial rule and Christian missionaries — to justify a sectarian anti-conversion campaign, the RSS and the Home Minister have committed a grave historical betrayal of his legacy. The real Adivasi issues — Forest Rights Act sabotage, corporate mining on sacred lands, gram sabha subversion — remain unaddressed.
⚖️ The Constitutional & Legal Framework: ST Identity ≠ Religion
📜 Presidential Order 1950 (SC Basis)
The Presidential Order of 1950 holds that persons belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC) who profess a religion "other than Hinduism" do not qualify for constitutional protections meant for SCs.
JSM demands this principle be extended to Scheduled Tribes (ST) — a move that would strip lakhs of converted Adivasis of their constitutional rights.
JSM leaders describe the absence of this restriction for STs as "a weakness in the Constitution."
🏛️ Patna High Court Ruling (1963)
In 1963, the Patna High Court categorically rejected the petition seeking to link ST identity to religion.
The Court held: "Tribal identity is not religion-based" — it rests on ethnic and community kinship ties.
The Court observed: "An Oraon remains an Oraon" regardless of whether they are Hindu, Christian, or Buddhist.
Converted Adivasis were found to continue participating in community festivals — proving cultural continuity, not abandonment.
🎭 The Two-Pronged JSM Strategy: Delist + Cooption
Delisting Campaign: JSM demands removal of Christian-converted Adivasis from ST lists, ending their access to reservations, land rights, and welfare schemes.
The Sanatan Parivar Claim: At the conclave, JSM's national convenor declared: "They say Adivasis are not Hindus — this is a conspiracy against us." Another leader stated "Adivasis exist in the shade of the great tree of Sanatan."
"Ghar Wapasi" (Homecoming): JSM's reconversion functions are marked with Hindutva symbols — not Adivasi ones — revealing the ideological agenda beneath cultural language.
Engineered Exclusion as Proof: JSM forcibly prevents converted Adivasis from attending community festivals and then presents their absence as proof of cultural abandonment. Exclusion is engineered, then used as evidence.
Rebranding of Local Deities: Local Adivasi deities are rebranded as forms of Vishnu, Shiva, or Durga; Hanuman idols are installed at village entry points — a systematic Hinduisation of Adivasi spiritual spaces.
Vanvasi = Forest Dweller: JSM defines Adivasis as "vanvasis" — forest dwellers subordinate to upper-caste deities. This denies Adivasis their status as the original inhabitants of the land.
Birsa Munda's Ulgulan (Great Revolt) was directed against British colonial rule. He broke with Christian missionaries because he saw them as instruments of that colonial rule — not because of a Hindu nationalist ideology.
Mr. Shah's political lineage never fought the British — the RSS compromised with them. Invoking Birsa to legitimize a campaign against Christian Adivasis is a grave historical betrayal.
Mr. Shah declared that jal, jangal, pahad "is the centre of our beliefs" — words that ring hollow when his own government approved bauxite mining in Sijimali and Rayagada (Odisha), destroying sacred tribal mountains.
🌲 The Real Urgent Issues Facing Adivasis
Forest Rights Act (FRA) Sabotage: The virtual elimination of community forest rights through non-implementation of FRA provisions.
PESA Subversion: The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 — granting gram sabhas power over natural resources — is being systematically bypassed.
Corporate Mining on Sacred Lands: In Hasdeo (Chhattisgarh), thousands of Adivasis have fought for years against forests being handed to private mining companies. Sacred trees (sal, karam) are being felled by government decisions overriding gram sabha resolutions.
Employment Backlog: Massive vacancy backlog in reserved posts for STs in government services remains unfilled.
Student Welfare Deficit: Pathetic condition of Adivasi student hostels; arrears in scholarship payments remain uncleared.
Civic Infrastructure Gap: Lack of basic health and civic facilities across Adivasi areas.
On none of these issues has the JSM raised its voice in defense of Adivasi rights against government-enabled corporate takeovers of jal, jangal, and zameen.
🇮🇳 Article 25 & Adivasi Religious Freedom
Adivasis are fully entitled to choose their religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. Whether an Adivasi worships Ram or Jesus has no bearing on their identity as an Adivasi — this is a fundamental constitutional principle. The Jharkhand Legislative Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a separate Census column for Adivasi animist belief systems (Sarna religion).
🔑 Key Terms
Janjati Suraksha Manch (JSM)Vanvasi Kalyan AshramDelisting of ST ConvertsPresidential Order 1950Birsa Munda's UlgulanGhar WapasiForest Rights Act (FRA)PESA 1996Jal Jangal ZameenSarna ReligionArticle 25Hasdeo Forest
✏ Probable Mains Questions
"The demand to delist Christian-converted Adivasis from Scheduled Tribe lists is constitutionally untenable and historically distorted." Critically examine in the context of tribal identity, religious freedom, and the Patna High Court judgment. (GS-2, 250 words)
Discuss the real socio-economic and legal challenges facing Adivasi communities in India, and critically evaluate the role of government policy in addressing them. (GS-2, 250 words)
"Invoking Birsa Munda's legacy for Hindutva politics represents a fundamental misreading of India's tribal revolt history." Analyze. (GS-1, 150 words)
🎯 Practice MCQs
Prelims Q1
With reference to Scheduled Tribes (ST) in India, consider the following statements:
1. Unlike Scheduled Castes (SC), the Constitution of India does not link Scheduled Tribe (ST) identity to any particular religion.
2. The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) grants gram sabhas in Fifth Schedule Areas powers over natural resources including minor forest produce.
3. The Presidential Order of 1950 excludes persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes who convert to Christianity from availing ST benefits.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
📖 View Explanation
Statement 1 is correct ✓ — The Constitution does NOT link ST identity to religion. The Patna HC (1963) confirmed "tribal identity is not religion-based." The Presidential Order of 1950 restricts SC benefits based on religion, but NO such restriction exists for STs.
Statement 2 is correct ✓ — PESA (1996) grants gram sabhas in Fifth Schedule Areas significant powers over natural resources, land acquisition, and minor forest produce.
Statement 3 is incorrect ✗ — The Presidential Order of 1950 applies to Scheduled Castes (SC), NOT to Scheduled Tribes (ST). There is no such Presidential Order excluding ST converts from ST benefits.
Answer: (b) — 1 and 2 only
Prelims Q2
Birsa Munda's "Ulgulan" (Great Revolt) was primarily directed against which of the following?
📖 View Explanation
Answer: (b) is correct ✓
Birsa Munda's Ulgulan (1899–1900) was a tribal revolt in the Chota Nagpur region (present-day Jharkhand) primarily directed against British colonial rule and the exploitative diku system of land alienation. Birsa broke with Christian missionaries because he saw them as instruments of colonial rule — not out of a Hindutva ideology. He was arrested by the British and died in Ranchi Jail in 1900 at age 25.
Answer: (b)
THE HINDU | Education Policy + Federalism + Linguistic Rights
🗣️ Language Decorum: School Education Should Not Be a Cultural Battleground
Context: Supreme Court of India issuing notices to the Union Government, CBSE, and NCERT to file a report on logistical preparedness to implement the three-language formula for Class 9 students from July 1, 2026 — and the CBSE's abrupt policy reversal from a 2029–30 deferral.
📋 Syllabus:GS-2: Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector — EducationGS-2: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors; issues arising out of their design and implementationGS-2: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States; issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
🎯 Why in News? The Supreme Court issued notices to the Union Government, CBSE, and NCERT to file a report on preparedness to implement the three-language formula in all CBSE schools for Class 9 students from July 1, 2026. The Court declined an immediate stay but acknowledged "hardship and inconvenience." The CBSE had issued a circular on May 15 mandating the three-language formula from July 1 — an abrupt reversal from its earlier position that the requirement would be deferred until 2029–30.
⚡ Core Argument
The CBSE's imposition of the three-language formula on Class 9 students from July 1, 2026 reflects complete disregard for students, teachers, and parents. The abrupt policy reversal — from a 2029–30 deferral to immediate implementation — can only be explained as a political decision. The mandate is constitutionally challenged on grounds of personal liberty, legislative competence (CBSE as an executive body cannot impose sweeping educational mandates without parliamentary legislation), and the NEP 2020 itself, which promises no language shall be imposed on any student or State. Turning school education into a cultural battleground undermines India's ambition to build advanced human capital.
📅 Timeline of the Three-Language Controversy
Date / Period
Event
Significance
NEP 2020
Introduced three-language formula with flexibility — no language imposed on any student or State.
Executive policy, not a statute — not legally binding.
NCF 2023
National Curriculum Framework reaffirmed three-language framework for school education.
At least two of three must be native Indian languages; foreign languages only as third or fourth subject.
Earlier CBSE Stand
CBSE stated the three-language requirement would be deferred until 2029–30.
Gave schools and students adequate preparation time.
May 15, 2026
CBSE circular mandating three languages for Class 9 from July 1, 2026. Third language exempted from Board exam but marks appear on certificate.
Abrupt U-turn with weeks' notice before Board cycle begins.
May 27, 2026
Supreme Court declines stay, issues notices to Centre, CBSE, NCERT. Arguments on July 15–16.
Court acknowledged "hardship and inconvenience."
⚖️ Constitutional & Legal Challenges
🏛️ Grounds of Challenge
Personal Choice & Liberty: Language is a matter of personal choice — raising concerns under Articles 19 and 21.
Legislative Competence: CBSE, as an executive body, lacks authority to impose sweeping educational mandates without parliamentary legislation.
NEP Contradiction: NEP 2020 promises "no language shall be imposed on any student or State" — the CBSE mandate contradicts its own source document.
Federal Concerns: Non-Hindi states fear this is backdoor Hindi imposition — a long-standing flashpoint especially in Tamil Nadu.
⚠️ Ground-Level Challenges
Teacher Shortage: Severe shortage of trained language teachers across CBSE schools.
Textbook Unavailability: Appropriate textbooks in required languages are not yet available.
Exam Pressure: Students already under Board examination stress are burdened with an additional language subject.
Assessment Anomaly: Third language exempted from Class 10 Board exam but marks appear on final certificate — creating confusion.
🇮🇳 The Federal Dimension: Language & Centre-State Relations
The three-language formula has historically been a flashpoint in Centre-State relations. Tamil Nadu has long refused to implement it. The NEP 2020's flexibility clause was designed to accommodate such political realities. The CBSE's sudden imposition — without state consultation, without adequate infrastructure, without parliamentary sanction — reignites these federal tensions. The Supreme Court's intervention signals that judicial oversight of education policy touching linguistic rights remains essential.
"The CBSE's sudden imposition of the three-language formula reveals a clash between educational policy intent and constitutional limits on executive authority." Analyze. (GS-2, 250 words)
Discuss the historical and contemporary tensions surrounding language policy in India's school education system, with special reference to Centre-State relations. (GS-2, 150 words)
🎯 Practice MCQs
Prelims Q1
With reference to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the Three-Language Formula, consider the following statements:
1. NEP 2020 mandates compulsory study of Hindi as one of the three languages for all students in CBSE schools across India.
2. At least two of the three languages studied under the formula must be native Indian languages.
3. NEP 2020 is a statute passed by Parliament and is therefore legally binding on all States and educational institutions.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
📖 View Explanation
Statement 1 is incorrect ✗ — NEP 2020 does NOT mandate Hindi as a compulsory language. It promotes the three-language formula with flexibility, explicitly stating that no language shall be imposed on any student or State.
Statement 2 is correct ✓ — Under the NCF 2023, at least two of the three languages must be native Indian languages. Foreign languages like French or German can only be taken as a third language if the first two were Indian, or as an optional fourth subject.
Statement 3 is incorrect ✗ — NEP 2020 is an executive policy document, not a statute passed by Parliament. This is precisely why CBSE — itself an executive body — cannot enforce the policy as a legally binding mandate without parliamentary legislation.
Answer: (b) — 2 only
THE HINDU | Judiciary + Constitutional Law + Rule of Law
⚖️ The Apex Court Rings Its Own Chain — Suo Motu Cognisance & Judicial Boundaries
Author: V. Venkatesan (Journalist and Legal Researcher) | Context: The Supreme Court's increasing use of suo motu cognisance — particularly in the Twisha Sharma case — raising systemic questions about the appropriate use of scarce judicial attention.
📋 Syllabus:GS-2: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the JudiciaryGS-2: Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional bodiesGS-2: Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies
🎯 Why in News? The Supreme Court's suo motu cognisance of the death of Twisha Sharma — registered under the title "In Re Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies in the Unnatural Death of a Young Girl at Her Matrimonial Home" — has triggered a larger debate about whether suo motu jurisdiction, once "rare but highly visible," has become a recurring instrument driven by primetime media attention rather than judicial necessity.
⚡ Core Argument
The Supreme Court's reliance on suo motu cognisance has transformed a once genuinely exceptional jurisdiction into a routine, media-triggered instrument. The Twisha Sharma case reveals the contradiction: the apex court takes cognisance based on media reports, simultaneously tells media not to record witness statements, yet acknowledges progress happened because of media intervention. The harder path — reforming trial courts through better case management, appointments, and training — remains untrodden. Judicial attention is a scarce resource. When allocated by primetime television rather than judicial need, the constitutional purpose of suo motu jurisdiction is undermined.
📚 Understanding Suo Motu Cognisance
What is Suo Motu Cognisance?
Definition:Suo motu (Latin: "on its own motion") — the court takes up a case on its own initiative, without a formal petition from an aggrieved party.
Constitutional Basis: Exercised under Articles 32, 136 and 142 — extraordinary jurisdiction when systemic failures threaten fundamental rights.
Original Purpose: To be a rare but powerful remedy when no party can or will file a petition.
The Jahangir Analogy: Like Emperor Jahangir's chain — a mechanism by which a subject denied justice could directly reach the emperor. The Supreme Court is now ringing its own chain.
Key Constitutional Provisions
Article 32: Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Article 136: Special leave to appeal — broad discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Article 142: Supreme Court can pass any order to do "complete justice" — broadest basis for suo motu interventions.
Article 235: High Courts exercise control over subordinate courts — the proper structural tool for trial court reform.
🔍 The Twisha Sharma Case — Analysis
Background: Apex court registered the case suo motu on May 23, based on "media reports and other attending circumstances" — a significant departure from the norm that courts act on evidence, not news narratives.
The Ground Was Not Vacant: A magistrate in Bhopal had already remanded the husband to 7 days' police custody. The MP High Court had directed a second autopsy by an AIIMS Delhi team. The Bar Council of India and the State government were already acting.
Self-Contradiction: Two days after registering the case, the same bench appealed to media to refrain from recording statements of potential witnesses — admonishing the very journalists who triggered its cognisance — while being, simultaneously, both consumer and critic of the same source.
The Solicitor General's Admission: In open court, the Solicitor General confirmed: "It is also because of this media intervention that a lot of progress has happened" — a remarkable admission that judicial action was reactive to media, not proactive based on judicial need.
📊 The Rising Trend of Suo Motu Cases
Period
Suo Motu Cases
Key Observation
Pre-2019 (15 years)
31 total
Genuinely rare — avg. ~2 per year.
2019
10 cases
The inflection point — primetime-driven cognisance begins.
2020–2024
35 cases
Dramatic rise — what was exceptional has become routine.
2021
8 cases
Consistent and rising trend in criminal matters especially.
2022 / 2023
4 cases each
2024
12 cases
By May 2025
4 civil + 4 criminal
Already exceeding full-year counts of 2022 and 2023.
🏛️ The Sahara Standard: When Is Suo Motu Justified?
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI (2012) — Constitution Bench Standard
A five-judge Constitution Bench set the test: Suo motu powers permit a postponement order against media publication only when there is "a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice."
The order is available only where no less restrictive means will work — it is a last resort, not a first response.
In the Twisha matter, the bench's request to media carries moral weight, not legal force.
The easier path (media pressure → court cognisance) may produce faster visible results; the harder path (reforming judicial infrastructure below) is what actually serves justice at scale.
⚠️ Cases Where Apex Supervision Did NOT Produce Justice
Lakhimpur Kheri (2021)
Apex court took suo motu cognisance in October 2021.
Set aside High Court's bail order for main accused Ashish Mishra in April 2022.
By early 2026 — the trial court had examined only 44 of 131 witnesses. Apex supervision has NOT been the route to faster justice.
Manipur Video Case (2023)
Suo motu cognisance taken in July 2023 over the viral video.
By early 2026, the case has yet to produce a conviction.
Apex supervision created optics of intervention but did not accelerate justice at the trial level.
🔧 The Harder Path: Structural Judicial Reform
Trial Court Infrastructure: Reforming the judiciary through better case management, physical infrastructure, and appointment processes is the structural solution — not case-by-case apex monitoring.
Article 235 (High Court Supervision): High Courts exercise control over subordinate courts — the proper constitutional tool for trial court oversight, requiring sustained cooperation between apex and high courts.
NCRB Data: The NCRB records 6,450 dowry deaths in 2022 — with convictions in only 11 to 17 per cent of cases. Selection of cases for suo motu must be temporal (based on present record), not based on media prominence.
Scarce Resource: Judicial attention must be allocated by need rather than media salience. Sustained primetime attention followed by cognisance raises fundamental questions about judicial selection criteria.
🇮🇳 Constitutional Significance
The Twisha Sharma matter is constitutionally significant because the ground was NOT vacant when the apex court arrived. The magistrate had remanded the husband; the MP High Court had directed a second autopsy; the Bar Council and State government were acting. The constitutional response to fear of institutional bias is independent investigation under judicial supervision, conducted promptly — not apex court cognisance based on a media narrative. The chain Jahangir hung was a remedy against an unaccountable bureaucracy; the Supreme Court is now that bureaucracy, ringing its own chain.
🔑 Key Terms
Suo Motu CognisanceTwisha Sharma CaseSahara India v. SEBI (2012)Articles 32 / 136 / 142 / 235Primetime Judicial CognisanceLakhimpur Kheri CaseDowry Death (IPC 304B)Trial Court PendencyJudicial Attention ScarcityJahangir's Chain Analogy
✏ Probable Mains Questions
"The Supreme Court's increasing use of suo motu cognisance based on media reports risks converting a rare constitutional remedy into a routine instrument of judicial overreach." Critically examine. (GS-2, 250 words)
Discuss the constitutional basis and appropriate limits of the Supreme Court's suo motu jurisdiction in India. How does this relate to the broader challenge of pendency in trial courts? (GS-2, 250 words)
"Judicial attention is a scarce resource and must be allocated by need rather than by media prominence." Analyze in the context of the Supreme Court's functioning. (GS-2, 150 words)
🎯 Practice MCQs
Prelims Q1
With reference to the Supreme Court of India's suo motu powers, consider the following statements:
1. Suo motu cognisance by the Supreme Court can be taken based on newspaper reports and media coverage of events that may involve violation of fundamental rights.
2. In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI (2012), a five-judge Constitution Bench held that postponement orders against media publication can be issued only where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice.
3. Article 235 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court direct supervisory jurisdiction over all district and subordinate courts in India.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
📖 View Explanation
Statement 1 is correct ✓ — The Supreme Court has in practice taken suo motu cognisance based on newspaper reports and media coverage, including the Twisha Sharma case registered "based on media reports and other attending circumstances."
Statement 2 is correct ✓ — In Sahara India v. SEBI (2012), a five-judge Constitution Bench set the standard: a postponement order against media publication is available only where there is "a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice" and only where no less restrictive means will work.
Statement 3 is incorrect ✗ — Article 235 grants supervisory jurisdiction over district and subordinate courts to High Courts, not the Supreme Court.
Answer: (a) — 1 and 2 only
Prelims Q2
Consider the following pairs regarding Articles of the Indian Constitution and their provisions:
1. Article 32 — Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights
2. Article 136 — Extraordinary original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional validity
3. Article 142 — Power of the Supreme Court to pass decrees necessary for doing complete justice
4. Article 235 — Control of the High Courts over subordinate courts
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
📖 View Explanation
Pair 1 — Correct ✓: Article 32 is the "Right to Constitutional Remedies" — right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Dr. Ambedkar called it the "heart and soul" of the Constitution.
Pair 2 — Incorrect ✗: Article 136 grants the Supreme Court Special Leave to Appeal — discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The "extraordinary original jurisdiction" in constitutional matters is under Article 131 and Article 32.
Pair 3 — Correct ✓: Article 142 grants the Supreme Court power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it.
Pair 4 — Correct ✓: Article 235 vests control over district courts and other subordinate civil and criminal courts in the High Courts.
Three pairs (1, 3, and 4) are correctly matched. Answer: (c) — Only three
⚡ Quick Revision — Hindu Editorial Analysis Today in English
Topic
Core Argument
Key Terms
Syllabus
🌿 Adivasi Identity & JSM Politics
JSM's demand to delist Christian-converted Adivasis from ST lists is constitutionally untenable — the Constitution does not link ST identity to religion (unlike SCs). Patna HC (1963) confirmed this. JSM's cooption campaign erases Adivasi animist distinctiveness. Real Adivasi issues — FRA, PESA, corporate mining — remain unaddressed.
SC's suo motu cases rose from 31 total (pre-2019) to 35 in 2020–24 alone. Twisha Sharma case was registered based on media reports when the ground was not vacant. Sahara (2012) standard demands "real and substantial risk to justice." Judicial attention is scarce — must be need-based, not media-driven. Trial court reform is the harder but right path.
Suo Motu Cognisance, Twisha Sharma, Sahara v. SEBI 2012, Articles 32/136/142/235, Lakhimpur Kheri, Judicial Attention Scarcity, Trial Court Pendency.
