Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging CM’s ST status
From CK Nayak
NEW DELHI: Chief Minister Mukul Sangma on Friday emerged triumphant in one of the most challenging tests in his otherwise burgeoning political career as the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition challenging his Scheduled Tribe status and that of his brother, sister and a host of other people.
The apex court bench consisting of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Uday U. Lalit said that there is no merit in the case being heard in the court. It also lifted the ban on the State-level Scrutiny Committee to look into the allegations. If they feel so the aggrieved parties can go to the High Court, the bench said.
Supreme Court lawyer Ranjan Mukherjee, who is also the counsel for the Meghalaya Government, and others appeared on behalf of the chief minister.
The contentious case questioning the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status of the chief minister and others was adjourned over a dozen times since July, 2014, when the petition was accepted in the apex court.
The last time the case came up for hearing was on July 31, but the apex court had deferred the hearing till September 18 following an adjournment petition filed by the petitioner Tennydard M Marak through his counsel seeking extension of time to submit more documents.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Meghalaya Government and seven others in the case related to the ST status of the chief minister and others.
The apex court had, on January 20 last year, requested the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes to verify and dispose of the case related to the ST status of the chief minister within eight weeks on merit and in accordance with the law.
The apex court was hearing a case filed by Marak seeking its direction to hold inquiry into the ST status of Mukul Sangma and cancellation of the certificate issued to him on June 23, 1982. Earlier on October 7, 2014, the Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya had dismissed a PIL in this regard filed by Tennydard M Marak and the All Northeast Indigenous Garo Law Promoters’ Association.
The petitioners had alleged that the chief minister had obtained an ST certificate by misrepresentation and suppressing the material facts, and as such, the certificate was liable for cancellation.
However, the High Court had said that the petitioners were not the aggrieved parties and the High Court was not the proper authority to hold enquiry on ST certificate.