This article critically examines the evolving relationship between India’s tribal communities and the Constitution, through the lens of foundational constitutional values such as equality, equity, and dignity. These values are not abstract ideals but serve as the moral compass of the Constitution, guiding both the State and its citizens toward a just and inclusive society. In tribal contexts—where statutory law, customary practices, and socio-economic vulnerabilities intersect—these values take on heightened importance.
The Preamble of the Indian Constitution enshrines the ideals of sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, republicanism, justice (social, economic, and political), liberty, equality, and fraternity. These principles are operationalized through the Fundamental Rights, the Directive Principles of State Policy, and the Fundamental Duties. Yet, the lived experiences of tribal communities reveal gaps between constitutional promises and ground realities.
Judicial Interpretations: Building a Constitutional Framework for Tribal Justice
Over the decades, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in safeguarding the rights of marginalized communities, particularly tribals. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 laid the foundation for constitutional values by articulating the “Basic Structure Doctrine.” The Court ruled that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure, which includes justice, liberty, equality, and dignity. This principle became the bedrock for evaluating future laws and state actions.
The spirit of this doctrine was later echoed in the Samatha case in 1997, which marked a defining moment for tribal land rights. In this case, the Supreme Court examined the legality of leasing tribal lands in Scheduled Areas to private mining companies. The Court firmly ruled that such leases violated the protective intent of the Fifth Schedule and the Andhra Pradesh Land Transfer Regulations. It recognized that tribal land is not merely a piece of property—it is tied to identity, culture, and survival. By halting mining leases in Visakhapatnam’s agency areas, (presently in Alluri Sitaramra Raju District) the Court reinforced tribal autonomy over natural resources.
The principles articulated in the I.R. Coelho case in 2007 further strengthened this constitutional framework. Here, the Court held that any legislation placed under the Ninth Schedule—originally meant to shield laws from judicial scrutiny—could still be struck down if it damaged the Constitution’s basic structure or fundamental rights. This ensured that tribal rights could not be sidelined through legislative maneuvering.
Customary Practices and Constitutional Morality: Seeking Gender Justice in Tribal Societies
The Constitution protects cultural diversity, including tribal customs, under Article 13. However, it does so with an important caveat: such customs must align with the values of equality and dignity. This tension between cultural autonomy and constitutional morality has been tested in several landmark judgments.
The Shayara Bano case in 2017 brought this debate into the spotlight when the Supreme Court struck down the practice of instant triple talaq. The Court declared that personal laws, though culturally rooted, could not override the fundamental right to gender equality. A year later, in the Sabarimala judgment of 2018, the Court held that the exclusion of women from entering the temple violated their dignity and equality, as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21.
These rulings resonate strongly with ongoing concerns in tribal societies. In states like Odisha and Jharkhand, customary forums such as panch parganas have traditionally excluded women from decision-making processes. Inspired by these constitutional principles, reforms are now being initiated to make tribal governance more gender-inclusive.
One of the most pressing issues relates to property rights of ST women. Many tribal customs still deny women equal inheritance rights. Although the Hindu Succession Act was amended in 2005 to guarantee gender parity, these provisions are not automatically applicable to Scheduled Tribes. The Constituent Assembly had foreseen this conflict and emphasized the need to balance tribal autonomy with constitutional guarantees. Yet, the lived reality remains that countless tribal women are excluded from ancestral property, reflecting a persistent gap between legal frameworks and social reform.
Gothi Koya: A Case Study in Identity and Statelessness
A stark example of constitutional inequity can be seen in the treatment of the Gothi Koya community. Originally recognized as Scheduled Tribes in Chhattisgarh, the community migrated to Telangana and Andhra Pradesh to escape violence during the Salwa Judum conflict. Despite being STs under the central constitutional framework, they lost their tribal status upon crossing state borders.
This situation underscores the shortcomings of Articles 341 and 342, which vest the power to define SC/ST communities with the President and Governors on a state-by-state basis. As a result, tribal identity becomes fragmented, tied to geography rather than ethnicity or vulnerability. The constitutional value of equality—both formal and substantive—is undermined when protections vary so drastically within a single nation.
The Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992, which legitimized caste-based reservations for backward classes, highlighted the principle of substantive equality—that equality means addressing structural disadvantages, not merely treating everyone the same. Applying this lens, the Gothi Koya case presents an urgent need for policy coherence. Without legislative intervention, these citizens continue to be rendered invisible in the eyes of the law.
Land, Justice, and Moral Dilemmas
Land is central to tribal life, and its protection is a constitutional obligation. However, legal interpretations sometimes create morally ambiguous outcomes.
Consider two scenarios: In one, a wealthy tribal legally purchases land from a poorer tribal, leading to internal inequality and concentration of wealth. In another, a non-tribal family that has lived on tribal land for generations is evicted under land restoration laws. Both cases are legally valid, yet they challenge the moral sensibilities of justice and fairness.
The Supreme Court, in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas in 1976, recognized that formal equality is insufficient in a society marked by deep structural inequality. Justice, in such cases, must be approached with both legality and compassion. In Andhra Pradesh, courts have increasingly adopted a balanced approach—upholding tribal land rights while also ensuring procedural fairness to non-tribal settlers in the scheduled area.
Rights and Duties: The Role of Participatory Citizenship
Although Fundamental Duties under Article 51A are not enforceable by law, they act as moral obligations that promote responsible citizenship. The Supreme Court, in the AIIMS Students' Union case in 2001, emphasized that these duties help foster a disciplined and democratic society.
Tribal youth and student groups have drawn upon these duties to defend their environments and cultural heritage. Citing Article 51A(g)—the duty to protect the natural environment—activists in Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra have mobilized against deforestation and illegal mining.
Constitutional Values versus Market Forces
The onset of globalization has brought with it new challenges for tribal societies. Large-scale industrial projects and mining operations often threaten the land, culture, and autonomy of these communities. Here, the Directive Principles—especially Articles 39(b) and 39(c)—act as safeguards, directing the State to ensure equitable resource distribution and prevent monopolization.
The case of the Dongria Kondh tribe in Odisha exemplifies resistance rooted in constitutional protection. Faced with bauxite mining by a multinational corporation, the community invoked the PESA Act and environmental rights under Article 21. The Supreme Court, in 2013, upheld the authority of the Gram Sabha to determine the use of community land, reaffirming the role of grassroots democracy in tribal governance.
Conclusion: A Call for Contextual Constitutionalism
The Indian Constitution, as a living document, must continually adapt to social realities while remaining anchored in its core values. In tribal areas, where traditional customs, economic vulnerabilities, and identity-based exclusions converge, the Constitution must not be a distant promise but a daily protector of rights and dignity.
From the Gothi Koya’s denial of tribal status to ST women’s exclusion from property rights, from land restoration dilemmas to environmental justice movements, these are not isolated issues—they reflect deeper constitutional questions.
True empowerment of tribal communities lies not only in upholding legal entitlements but also in cultivating policies and practices rooted in contextual sensitivity, moral reasoning, and inclusive governance. Only then can the values of equality, equity, and dignity become the shared reality of all citizens, including the most marginalized.
Comments