EWANLANGKI-E-RYMBAI versus JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS.

EWANLANGKI-E-RYMBAI versus JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS.

The exclusion of Christians from contesting for the office of Dolloi does not violate Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India. The restriction is not solely on the ground of religion but on account of the fact that a Christian cannot perform the indigenous religious functions required by the office, which is part of the tribal custom. The exclusion is reasonable and not arbitrary; Section 3(1) of the Act and the relevant notification are constitutionally valid.

Parties
Appellant: Ewanlangki-e Rymbai; Respondents: Jaintia Hills District Council and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Appeal From High Court (gauhati), Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Customs and Indigenous Practices, Exclusion Based on Religious Functions, Validity of Tribal Customs, Articles 14, 15, 16 of Constitution
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Tribal Law Customs and Indigenous Practices Exclusion Based on Religious Functions Validity of Tribal Customs Articles 14, 15, 16 of Constitution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ewanlangki-e Rymbai

Appellant

Jaintia Hills District Council and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Appeal From High Court (gauhati), Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of Christians from contesting election to the post of Dolloi violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India
  2. 2 Constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of Christians from contesting for the office of Dolloi does not violate Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India. The restriction is not solely on the ground of religion but on account of the fact that a Christian cannot perform the indigenous religious functions required by the office, which is part of the tribal custom. The exclusion is reasonable and not arbitrary; Section 3(1) of the Act and the relevant notification are constitutionally valid.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Section 3(1) of the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 is constitutionally valid.
  • Notifications excluding Christians from contesting the post of Dolloi are upheld.