{"id":194585,"date":"1990-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990"},"modified":"2018-12-01T04:22:32","modified_gmt":"2018-11-30T22:52:32","slug":"srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990","title":{"rendered":"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 991, \t\t 1990 SCR (1) 576<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSRISH KUMAR CHOUDHURY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/02\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  991\t\t  1990 SCR  (1) 576\n 1990 SCC  Supl.  220\t  JT 1990 (2)\t 27\n 1990 SCALE  (1)300\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution   of  India--Articles\t341  and   342\/Items\n15-18--Laskar Community--Inclusion in the list of  Scheduled\nTribes--Entertainment\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The appellant is a resident of Tripura State. He assert-\ned  that he belonged to the Laskar community which  was\t in-\ncluded\tin State records in the Deshi Tripura community\t and\nin  the\t former State of Tripura this community\t had  always\nbeen  treated  as Scheduled Tribes, and the members  of\t the\ncommunity  freely  enjoyed  all the  benefits  available  to\nmembers\t of the Scheduled Tribes until 1976 when  the  State\nGovernment decided to treat members of this community as not\nbelonging to the Scheduled Tribes and issued instructions to\nthe state authorities to implement the Government  decision.\nBeing  aggrieved the appellant filed a writ petition  before\nthe  High  Court in a representative  capacity\tpraying\t for\nappropriate  directions\t directing the State  Government  to\ncontinue to treat the appellant and members of Laskar commu-\nnity  as  belonging to Scheduled Tribes and extend  all\t the\nbenefits available to Scheduled Tribes to this community. In\nsupport\t of  his  claim the appellant relied  upon  the\t two\ncirculars  of the erstwhile State of Tripura dated  December\n1930 and February 1941 as also the census report of the\t ex-\nstate of Tripura, besides the authorities of this Court. The\nrespondent  took  the plea that Laskar community  was  never\nincluded in the Scheduled Tribes Order and as such there was\nno question of excluding it from the List. After considering\nthe  rival contentions of the parties coupled with the\this-\ntorical\t background  bearing on the subject,  the  statement\nmade  by the Advocate-General that the Memos will  be  given\nprospective  operation,\t the High Court dismissed  the\tWrit\nPetition.  Hence this appeal by Special Leave.\tThis  appeal\ninitially came up before a two judges Bench for final  hear-\ning when on a statement made by the Counsel for the Union of\nIndia  that a representation made by the appellant and\tmem-\nbers  of his community for inclusion their caste-Laskar,  in\nthe  Presidential  order under Article 342 is  being  looked\ninto and is being placed before the Parliamentary  Committee\nfor review of the position, the Court disposed of the appeal\nin terms of the assurance\n577\ngiven on behalf of the Union. It was specifically stated  in\nthe Court's order that in case the community is not included\nin the Presidential Order, it would be open to the appellant\nto  take  such\taction as may be available to  him  in\tlaw.\nNothing\t having\t happened at governmental  level,  with\t the\nconsent\t of the parties, the order disposing of\t the  appeal\nwas  recalled and the appeal has thus now come up for  hear-\ning.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  Reservation has become important in view  of\t the\nincreasing competition in society and that probably had\t led\nto the anxiety of the appellant and the people in his commu-\nnity to claim reservation. [586G]\n    In\tTripura the Scheduled Tribes within the\t meaning  of\nthe definition given in Article 366 of the Constitution have\nbeen  'Jamatia, Noatia, Riang  and  Tripura\/Tripuri\/Tippera'\napart from 15 other tribes. It is the case of the  appellant\nthat  Laskars  are a part of the tribe\tnamed  as  'Tripura,\nTripuri and Tippera' covered by Entry 18. [581D]\n    This Court should not assume jurisdiction and enter into\nan enquiry to determine whether the three terms indicated in\nthe  Presidential Order include Deshi Tripura  which  covers\nthe  Laskar community; but it is appropriate to\t commend  to\nthe  authorities concerned that as and when the question  is\nreviewed  it  should be examined whether the  claim  of\t the\nappellant  representing the Laskar community to be  included\nin the scheduled tribes is genuine and should, therefore, be\nentertained. [586F-G]\n    Even  if  historically  this tribe was  covered  by\t the\ngeneral\t description  of  Tripura, that by  itself  may\t not\njustify\t its  inclusion in the Order as a  Scheduled  Tribe.\nThat  is an additional feature which has weighed with us  in\ntaking our decision not to interfere in the matter. [587C]\n    B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa,<\/a> [1966] 1 SCR 316;\nBhaiyalal  v. Harikishan Singh and Ors.,<\/a> [1965] 2  SCR\t877;\nParsram\t and  Anr. v. Shivchand and Ors.,<\/a> [1969] 1  SCC\t 20;\nKishorilal  Hans  v. Raja Ram Singh and Ors.,<\/a> [1972]  2\t SCR\n632; Dina v. Narayan Singh, 38 ELR 212 and Bhaiya Ram  Munda\nv. Anirudh Patarand Ors.,<\/a> [1971] 1 SCR 804, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  479  of
\n1986.\n<\/p>\n
578<\/span><\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 18.3.  1985  of\t the
\nAssam High Court in Civil Rule No. 139 of 1979.
\n    A.K.  Ganguli,  A. Mariarputham, A.D.  Sikri  and  Dilip
\nTandon for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Rajiv Dhawan,
\nGopal  Singh, C.V.S. Rao, Adv. (NP) and R.B. Misra  for\t the
\nappearing respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Hardev Singh and S. Ravindra Bhat for the intervenor.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRANGANATH  MISRA,  J.This appeal by special leave  calls  in
\nquestion the judgment of the Guwahati High Court dated March
\n18,  1985,  dismissing the appellant’s\twrit  petition.\t The
\nappellant is a resident of Tripura State. In his application
\nin a representative capacity before the High court he  main-
\ntained\tthat he belonged to the Laskar community  which\t had
\nalways\tbeen treated in the erstwhile State of Tripura as  a
\nScheduled  Tribe and on that basis in the State records\t was
\nincluded in the Deshi Tripura community long before integra-
\ntion  of  the  Ruler’s State of Tripura with  the  Union  of
\nIndia.\tMembers of the Laskar community freely\tenjoyed\t all
\nthe  benefits  available to members of the  Schedule  Tribes
\nuntil in 1976 the State Government decided to treat  members
\nof  that community as not belonging to the Scheduled  Tribes
\nand  issued instructions to the State authorities to  imple-
\nment the Government decision. That led to the filing of\t the
\npetition before the High Court. In the writ petition  appel-
\nlant prayed for appropriate directions to continue to  treat
\nthe  appellant and members of his community as belonging  to
\nthe  Scheduled Tribes and for a direction to the State\tGov-
\nernment to extend all the benefits admissible to members  of
\nthe  Scheduled\tTribes to members of the  Laskar  community.
\nBefore the High Court the respondents disputed the claim and
\nmaintained  that the Laskar community was never included  in
\nthe Scheduled Tribes Order and as such there was no question
\nof exclusion from the list. A historical study of the  claim
\nwould  show that in the past  Tripura\/Tripuri\/Tippera  which
\nhave  been included in the Presidential\t Notification  never
\nincluded the Laskar community. Tripuras were. a TibetoDurman
\nrace  akin to the Shan tribe and Tipperas were divided\tinto
\nfour  groups, namely, (i) Puran or original  Tipperas;\t(ii)
\nJamatias;  (iii) Noatias or Nutan Tripuras and (iv)  Riangs.
\nRespondents  relied  upon Government  records  and  official
\npublications in support of-the aforesaid stand.\n<\/p>\n
579<\/span><\/p>\n
    Before  the\t High Court two circulars of  the  erstwhile
\nState of Tripura, one being of December, 1930, and the other
\nof February, 1941, as also the census report of the ex-State
\nof Tripura were produced in support of the claim advanced by
\nthe appellant. Several authorities of this Court were relied
\nupon for finding out the scope of enquiry in a claim of this
\ntype and ultimately by the impugned judgment the High  Court
\ndismissed the writ petition but on the basis of a  statement
\nmade  by  the Advocate-General appearing for the  State,  it
\nrecorded:\n<\/p>\n
“We  keep on record the statement made by the learned  Advo-
\ncate-General,  Tripura, on instruction that as a  result  of
\nthe  impugned Memorandum No.  18887-19077\/TW\/6-4(L-D)  dated
\n28.4. 1979 the certificates already issued would be  treated
\nas  infructuous\t prospectively and not\tretrospectively\t and
\nthose  who  have already enjoyed the benefits by  virtue  of
\nsuch Scheduled Tribe certificates they shall not be deprived
\nof the benefits they have already enjoyed and the Memorandum
\nshall  be effective from its date prospectively\t insofar  as
\nthe future benefits are concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
    This appeal had come up for final hearing earlier and by
\na  brief judgment reported in [1987] 3 SCC 463, a  two-Judge
\nBench recorded the following order:\n<\/p>\n
“The  record before us shows that the people of\t the  Laskar
\ncommunity  have\t been treated as members  of  the  Scheduled
\nTribes and there have been some letters from the  Government
\nof  India to the State Government in support of\t that  posi-
\ntion;  it is, however, a fact that there has been  no  clear
\ninclusion  of the community in an  appropriate\tPresidential
\nOrder. The appellant has maintained that even in the absence
\nof such a clear specification in a Presidential Order, as  a
\nsub-group  under one of the notified categories, the  appel-
\nlant’s\tcommunity has been enjoying the privileges. We\thave
\nbeen told by the learned counsel for the Union of India that
\nthe representation made by the appellant and members of\t his
\ncommunity  for\tinclusion in the  Presidential\tOrder  under
\nArticle 342 of the Constitution is being looked into and  is
\nbeing  placed before the Parliamentary Committee in  accord-
\nance  with  the\t prescribed procedure for a  review  of\t the
\nposition.  He  has assured us that the Government  of  India
\nwill take steps to finalise the matter at an
\n580<\/span>
\nearly  date  and  may in compliance with  the  procedure  as
\nprescribed, take a final decision. In case the community  is
\nnot included in the Presidential Order, it would be open  to
\nthe  appellant\tto take such action as may be  available  in
\nlaw.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appellant waited for some time and  approached\t the
\nGovernment  of India for quick action but when nothing\thap-
\npened, an application for directions was made in this Court.
\nSeveral\t adjournments  were taken but Government  could\t not
\ntake  any decision. Ultimately, by consent of  parties,\t the
\norder  disposing of the appeal was recalled and\t the  appeal
\nwas directed to be set down for re-hearing. That is how\t the
\nappeal is now before us.\n<\/p>\n
    Articles  341  and\t342 of the  Constitution  deal\twith
\nScheduled  Castes  and\tScheduled  Tribes  respectively\t and
\ncontain\t almost identical provision. We may extract  Article
\n342 dealing with Scheduled Tribes:\n<\/p>\n
“342.(1)  The  President may, with respect to any  State  or
\nUnion  Territory and where it is a State after\tconsultation
\nwith  the Governor thereof, by public notification,  specify
\nthe  tribes  or\t tribal communities or parts  of  or  groups
\nwithin\ttribes\tor tribal communities which  shall  for\t the
\npurposes  of  this Constitution be deemed  to  be  Scheduled
\nTribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as\t the
\ncase may be.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  parliament\t may by law include in or exclude  from\t the
\nlist of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification  issued
\nunder clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or
\ngroup  within  any tribe or tribal community,  but  save  as
\naforesaid a notification issued under the said clause  shall
\nnot be varied by any subsequent notification.”\n<\/p>\n
    Article 366(25) defines ‘Scheduled Tribes’ to mean\tsuch
\ntribes or tribal communities or parts or groups within\tsuch
\ntribal communities as are deemed under Art. 342 to be Sched-
\nuled  Tribes  for  the purposes of  this  Constitution.\t The
\nConstitution  (Scheduled Tribes) (Union Territories)  Order,
\n1950  relating\tto  Tripura included 19\t tribes\t within\t the
\nnotification.  Items 15, 16, 17 and 18 are relevant for\t our
\npurpose and they were:\n<\/p>\n
“15. Tripura or Tripuri, Tippera.\n<\/p>\n
581<\/span><\/p>\n
16. Jamatia\n<\/p>\n
17. Noatia\n<\/p>\n
18. Riang”\n<\/p>\n
    Following  the  Reorganisation  Act (37  of\t 1956),\t the
\nMinistry  of Home Affairs on October 29, 1956, notified\t the
\nlist of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In respect of
\nthe  then  Union Territory of Tripura the  same\t communities
\nwere relisted. Then came the NorthEastern Area\t(Reorganisa-
\ntion)  Act  (81 of 1971) which in the Fourth  Schedule\tcon-
\ntained\tamendment  to the  Constitution\t (Scheduled  Tribes)
\nOrder,\t1950. Items 15 to 18 in the Scheduled contained\t the
\nsame  descriptions. The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled  Tribes
\nOrders (Amendment) Act, (108 of 1976) in relation to Tripura
\nin  the Second Scheduled carried the same in Entries 7,\t 14,
\n16  and\t 18.  It is, therefore, clear that  in\tTripura\t the
\nscheduled tribes within the meaning of the definition  given
\nin  Art.  366 of the Constitution have been  the  following:
\n‘Jamatia,  Noatia, Riang and Tripura\/Tripuri\/Tippera’  apart
\nfrom  15 other tribes as specified. It is not  necessary  to
\nrefer  to  the 15 others inasmuch as it is the case  of\t the
\nappellant  that\t Laskars are a part of the  tribe  named  as
\nTripura, Tripuri or Tippera covered by Entry 18.
\n    Before  adverting to the evidence upon which the  appel-
\nlant  relies in support of his stand, it is  necessary\tthat
\nthe  scope of enquiry to be conducted in this regard by\t the
\nCourt may be determined. There are precedents of this  Court
\nwhich have to be first referred to. A Constitution Bench  in
\nthe case of B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa,<\/a> [1965]  1
\nSCR 316 examined the provisions of Art. 341 which  contained
\nsimilar\t provisions for the scheduled castes with  reference
\nto an election dispute. Wanchoo, J. spoke for the  Constitu-
\ntion Bench thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Clause (1) provides that the President may with respect  to
\nany State, after consultation with the Governor thereof,  by
\npublic notification, specify the castes, races or tribes  or
\nparts  of  or groups within castes, races  or  tribes  which
\nshall  for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to  be
\nScheduled  Castes in relation to that State. The  object  of
\nthis  provision\t obviously is to avoid all  disputes  as  to
\nwhether\t a particular caste is a Scheduled Caste or not\t and
\nonly those castes can be Scheduled Castes which are notified
\nin  the\t Order made by the President under  Art.  341  after
\nconsultation with the Governor where it relates to
\n582<\/span>
\nsuch  castes in a State. Clause (2) then provides that\tPar-
\nliament\t may by law include in or exclude from the  list  of
\nscheduled  castes specified in a notification  issued  under
\ncl. (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group  within
\nany  caste, race or tribe. The power was thus given to\tPar-
\nliament\t to  modify the notification made by  the  President
\nunder  cl.  (1). Further cl. (2) goes on to provide  that  a
\nnotification issued under cl. (1) shall not be varied by any
\nsubsequent notification, thus making the notification by the
\nPresident final for all times except for modification by law
\nas provided by cl. (2). Clearly therefore Art. 341  provides
\nfor a notification and for its finality except when  altered
\nby  Parliament\tby  law\t …..\tTherefore in  view  of\tthis
\nstringent  provision of the Constitution with respect  to  a
\nnotification issued under cl. (1) it is not open to any\t one
\nto  include any caste as coming within the  notification  on
\nthe basis of evidence–Oral or documentary,–if the caste in
\nquestion does not find specific mention in the terms of\t the
\nnotification  …..  It may be accepted that it is not\topen
\nto make any modification in the Order by producing  evidence
\nto show (for example) that though caste A alone is mentioned
\nin  the Order, caste B is also a part of caste A and  there-
\nfore  must be deemed to be included in caste A. It may\talso
\nbe accepted that wherever one caste has another name it\t has
\nbeen mentioned in brackets after it in
\nOrder. Therefore, generally speaking it would not be open to
\nany  person  to lead evidence to establish that caste  B  is
\npart of caste A notified in the Order.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t factual dispute raised in the case before the\tCon-
\nstitution  Bench  was whether Voddar caste was\tincluded  in
\nBhovi  caste which was one of the notified castes. The\tCon-
\nstitution Bench dealt with the evidence and ultimately said:
\n“In the circumstances therefore we agree with the High Court
\nthat respondent No. 1 though Voddar by caste belongs to\t the
\nscheduled  caste  of Bhovi mentioned in the  Order.  We\t may
\nagain  repeat that we have referred to the evidence in\tthis
\ncase  only because there was undoubtedly no caste  known  as
\nBhovi  in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and we\t had
\nto  find  out therefore which caste was meant  by  the\tword
\n‘Bhovi’ as used in the Order. But for this fact it would not
\nhave been open to any party to
\n583<\/span>
\ngive  evidence to the effect that caste A mentioned  in\t the
\nOrder includes or was the same as caste B where caste A does
\nexist in the area to which the Order applies.”\n<\/p>\n
    A similar dispute again came before a Constitution Bench
\nin  Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh & Ors.,<\/a> [1965] 2  SCR\t 877
\nwith reference to a scheduled tribe in an election  dispute.
\nGajendragadkar, CJ speaking for the Court said:
\n“It  is obvious that in specifying castes, races or  tribes,
\nthe  President\thas been expressly authorised to  limit\t the
\nnotification to parts of or groups within the castes,  races
\nor  tribes,  and  that must mean that  after  examining\t the
\neducational  and  social backwardness of a  caste,  race  or
\ntribe,\tthe President may well come to the  conclusion\tthat
\nnot  the whole caste, race or tribe but parts of  or  groups
\nwithin\tthem should be specified. Similarly,  the  President
\ncan  specify  castes, races or tribes or  parts\t thereof  in
\nrelation  not only to the entire State, but in\trelation  to
\nparts  of the State where he is satisfied that the  examina-
\ntion of the social and educational backwardness of the race,
\ncaste or tribe justifies such specification. In fact, it  is
\nwell-known  that before a notification is issued under\tArt.
\n341(1),\t an elaborate enquiry is made and it is as a  result
\nof this enquiry that social justice is sought to be done  to
\nthe  castes, races or tribes as may appear to be  necessary,
\nand  in doing justice, it would obviously be  expedient\t not
\nonly to specify parts or groups of castes, races or  tribes,
\nbut to make the said specification by reference to different
\nareas in the State.”\n<\/p>\n
    What  we have extracted above clearly supports the\tview
\nof the other Constitution Bench, namely, the list is intend-
\ned to be final.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tmay now refer to a two-Judge Bench decision  in\t the
\ncase of Parsram & Anr. v. Shivchand & Ors.,<\/a> [1969] 1 SCC 20.
\nHere  again, the Scheduled Castes Order was in issue  in  an
\nelection  dispute  and the question  for  consideration\t was
\nwhether mochi was included in the notified caste of  chamar.
\nThe Court referred to both the Constitution Bench  judgments
\nand indicated:\n<\/p>\n
“These\tjudgments are binding on us and we do not  therefore
\nthink that it would be of any use to look into the gazeteers
\nand the glossaries on the Punjab castes and tribes
\n584<\/span>
\nto  which reference was made at the Bar to find out  whether
\nMochi  and Chamar in some parts of the State at least  meant
\nthe  same caste although their might be some  difference  in
\nthe professions followed by their members, the main  differ-
\nence  being that Chamars skin dead animals which  Mochis  do
\nnot.  However  that may be, the question not being  open  to
\nagitation  by  evidence and being one the  determination  of
\nwhich  lies within the exclusive power of the President,  it
\nis not for us to examine it and come to a conclusion that if
\na person was in fact a Mochi, he could still claim to belong
\nto the scheduled caste of Chamars and be allowed to  contest
\nan election on that basis.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tKishorilal Hans v. Raja Ram Singh & Ors.,<\/a>  [1972]  2
\nSCR 632 a two-Judge Bench was called upon to decide  whether
\njatav  caste not mentioned in the scheduled castes of  Datia
\ndistrict  of  Madhya Pradesh in the Order  was\tincluded  in
\nchamar caste. The Court indicated:\n<\/p>\n
“If  the matter were res-integra we would have felt  a\tgood
\ndeal  of difficulty in reconciling with\t the  constitutional
\nprovisions  the scheme followed in the state and the  Orders
\nconcerned  by  which some caste has been  includes  in\tsome
\ndistricts  of the same State and excluded in the other\tdis-
\ntricts. This Court, however, has in Bhaiyalal v.  Harikishan
\nSingh & Ors.,<\/a> supra, made observations repelling the conten-
\ntion  that under Art. 341 of the Constitution the  President
\nwas  not authorised to limit the notification to parts of  a
\nState\t…..  In Bhaiyalal’s case the appellant’s  election
\nhad  been challenged on the ground that he belonged  to\t the
\nDohar  caste which was not recognised as a  scheduled  caste
\nfor the district in question and so his declaration that  he
\nbelonged to the Chamar caste which was a Scheduled Caste was
\nimproperly and illegally accepted by the Returning  Officer.
\nIt was held that the plea that though the appellant was\t not
\na Chamar as such he could claim the same status by reason of
\nthe  fact  that he belonged to Dohar caste which is  a\tsub-
\ncaste of the Chamar caste could not be accepted. An  enquiry
\nof  that kind would not be permissible having regard to\t the
\nprovisions contained in Art. 341 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
    We may now refer to two separate judgments of this Court
\nin the case Dina v. Narayan Singh, 38 ELR 212 and Bhaiya Ram
\nMunda v.\n<\/p>\n
585<\/span><\/p>\n
Anirudh\t Patar & Ors., [1971] 1 SCR 804. Both were  rendered
\nby a common Bench of Shah (as he then was) and Bhargava, JJ.
\nIn the first case the question for consideration was  inter-
\npretation  of  Entry 12 in the Scheduled Tribes\t Order.\t The
\nentry  read.  ‘Gond including Mana’. The  Court\t interpreted
\nthat Mana community was a substitute of Gond and on a proper
\nconstruction  of  the entry Manas not being Gonds  were\t not
\nintended  to be included. The decision in that case  is\t not
\nrelevant for our purpose.\n<\/p>\n
    In Bhaiya Ram’s case, the tribe specified in the  Sched-
\nuled Tribes Order was Munda. The respondent was a Patar\t but
\nhe  maintained that it was included in the  notified  tribe.
\nThe  Bench was of the view that evidence was admissible\t for
\nthe  purpose  of showing what an entry in  the\tPresidential
\nOrder  was  intended to mean though evidence  could  not  be
\naccepted  for modifying the order by including a new  tribe.
\nSince  the  respondents’ case was that Patars  were  Mundas,
\nevidence  could\t be  given to show that\t the  entry  ‘Munda’
\nincluded ‘Patar’.\n<\/p>\n
    These authorities clearly indicate, therefore, that\t the
\nentries in the Presidential Order have to be taken as  final
\nand  the scope of enquiry and admissibility of\tevidence  is
\nconfined  within the limitations indicated. It is,  however,
\nnot  open to the Court to make any addition  or\t subtraction
\nfrom the Presidential Order.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t evidence  in this case on which reliance  has\tbeen
\nplaced in support of the claim that Laskars are included  in
\nthe  tribe  described  as  ‘Tripura\/Tripuri\/Tippera’  mainly
\nconsists of two circulars of the erstwhile State of Tripura.
\nCircular  No. 9 is of December, 1930. There is\ta  narration
\ntherein to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
“In  this State Tripura Sampradaya means the following\tfive
\ncommunities’\n<\/p>\n
1. Puratan Tripura\n<\/p>\n
2. Deshi Tripura (related to Laskar Class)\n<\/p>\n
3. Noatia\n<\/p>\n
4. Jamatia\n<\/p>\n
5. Riang”\n<\/p>\n
586<\/span><\/p>\n
In  Circular No. 10 which is of the year 1941, it  has\tbeen
\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n
“In  this  State Tripura–Kshatriya  denotes  the  following
\nclasses:\n<\/p>\n
1. Puratan Tripura\n<\/p>\n
2. Deshi Tripura (related to Laskar Class)\n<\/p>\n
3. Noatia\n<\/p>\n
4. Jamatia\n<\/p>\n
5. Riang”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t latter document related to census operation in\t the
\nState.\tFrom  these  two documents it is  clear\t that  Deshi
\nTripura\t covered  the Laskar class while there\twas  another
\nclass called ‘Tripura\/Tripuri\/ Tippera’ which did not relate
\nto  Laskar  class. The Presidential Order has  admitted\t the
\nthree tribes of Noatia, Jamatia and Riang in terms but while
\ndealing\t with the two classes of Puratan Tripura  and  Deshi
\nTripura\t covering the Laskar class, it has adopted  the\t de-
\nscription of those three terms without referring to  Puratan
\nor Deshi.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t two  Constitution  Bench  judgments  indicate\tthat
\nenquiry\t is  contemplated before the Presidential  Order  is
\nmade but any amendment to the Presidential Order can only be
\nby  legislation. We do not think we should assume  jurisdic-
\ntion  and  enter into an enquiry to  determine\twhether\t the
\nthree  terms  indicated in the\tPresidential  Order  include
\nDeshi  Tripura\twhich covers the Laskar\t community;  but  we
\nconsider  it appropriate to commend to the authorities\tcon-
\ncerned\tthat as and when the question is reviewed it  should
\nbe examined whether the claim of the appellant\trepresenting
\nthe Laskar community to be included in the scheduled  tribes
\nis genuine and should, therefore, be entertained.
\n    Reservation has become important in view of the increas-
\ning competition in society and that probably had led to\t the
\nanxiety of the appellant and the people in his community  to
\nclaim reservation. As pointed out by the Constitution  Bench
\njudgments  which  we have referred to above,  the  basis  on
\nwhich  inclusion into or exclusion from the enumerated\tlist
\nmade under Art. 342 is contemplated is the changing  econom-
\nic, educational and other situations of the members of any
\n587<\/span>
\nparticular tribe. Keeping that in view the State  Government
\nmay initiate appropriate proposals for modification in\tcase
\nit is satisfied and after appropriate enquiry if the author-
\nities  are satisfied that the claim is genuine and  tenable,
\namendment may be undertaken as provided by the Constitution.
\n    This  Court has indicated in some of the  judgments\t re-
\nferred\tto  above that as a result of the  detailed  enquiry
\nmade  as to the economic status, the level of education\t and
\nthe  necessity\tof protection, inclusion into  or  exclusion
\nfrom the Order is made. This material relating to the Laskar
\ntribe  in 1930 or 1941 may not have been  considered  suffi-
\ncient  before the respective Orders were made for  including
\nthe Laskars, said to have been covered by the description of
\nDeshi  Tripura. Therefore, even if historically\t this  tribe
\nwas  covered by the general description of Tripura, that  by
\nitself\tmay  not  justify its inclusion in the\tOrder  as  a
\nscheduled  tribe.  That is an additional feature  which\t has
\nweighed\t with us in taking our decision not to interfere  in
\nthe matter.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t claim of the appellant is dismissed so far as\tthis
\nCourt  is concerned but the observations which we have\tmade
\nmay  be\t kept  in view. There shall be no  order  for  costs
\nthrough-out.\n<\/p>\n
Y. Lal\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n588<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 991, 1990 SCR (1) 576 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: SRISH KUMAR CHOUDHURY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/02\/1990 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH PUNCHHI, M.M. AGRAWAL, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSrish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-30T22:52:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-30T22:52:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990\"},\"wordCount\":3553,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990\",\"name\":\"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-30T22:52:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-30T22:52:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990","datePublished":"1990-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-30T22:52:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990"},"wordCount":3553,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990","name":"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-30T22:52:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srish-kumar-choudhury-vs-state-of-tripura-and-ors-on-23-february-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Srish Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 23 February, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194585\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}