Skip to main content

Laws on Tribes

 Laws on Tribes


Following the devastation and uproar that resulted from the First War of Independence (Revolt of

1857), the British sought to enact legislation that would separate Indians along the lines of caste and

religious identities in order to prevent a repeat of the previous uprising from occurring.

Many pieces of legislation were introduced and grouped together under the umbrella term "Criminal

Tribes Act," which prohibited entire communities by classifying them as serial offenders over the

course of several years after the first act was enacted. This was a sign that they posed a threat to

both society and the state in terms of law and order. "People have pursued work roles designated by

the caste system since the beginning of time: weaving, carpentry, and other such occupations were

passed down through families. As a result, there must have been hereditary criminals who followed

in the footsteps of their forebears "T. V. Stephens, a British official, offered the reason for his

actions. Tribes that had been designated as "Criminal Tribes" by the government were subjected to

unprecedented levels of control and supervision under the Criminal Tribes Act. Approximately 250

castes were notified and brought under the purview of this ordinance.

A number of castes and tribes were categorised as Criminal Tribes under the Act, based on the

perception that they possessed criminal proclivities. Therefore, everybody born in these areas across

the subcontinent was deemed to be a born criminal, regardless of whether or not they had prior

criminal convictions. This granted the police sweeping authority to detain them, manage them, and

monitor their movements throughout the city.

Once a tribe has been legally recognised, its members have no legal recourse to have such notices

revoked under the jurisdiction of the courts. From that point on, their movements were supervised

through a system of mandatory registration and passes, which stated where the holders might travel

and dwell, and district judges were obligated to keep records of those who fell under this category.

Many of these tribes were established in villages under the supervision of police officers, whose job

it was to guarantee that no member of the tribe was absent without permission. Eunuchs, a third-

gender community, were not exempt from this punitive regulation, which colonisers justified by

claiming that they were responsible for kidnapping, castration, and a variety of other immoral

behaviours that were having a negative impact on the society at the time.


After several amendments were made to this act over the years, the Act gained extensive powers,

some of which were as draconian as separating a six-year-old child from his or her parents who were

classified as "Criminal Tribes," and was eventually applied to the entire country, further tormenting

the Tribes.

The Indian government overturned this draconian act in 1949, which resulted in the

decriminalisation of 2,300,000 Tribals. The consequences of this repeal have continued to this day. A

committee, appointed by the central government the same year, investigated the necessity of the

existence of this statute and concluded that it was in violation of the basic spirit of the Indian

constitution, according to the committee's findings. After this decision was made, it is said that there

was an increase in crime, which sparked widespread outrage among the general population. To

combat habitual criminality in India, in 1952, the Indian government promulgated the Habitual

Offenders Act, which defined a habitual offender as someone who has been a victim of subjective

and objective influences and has manifested a set practise in criminal activity, as well as someone

who is a danger to society.


Nonetheless, this act is seen to be a simple extension of the very legislation that it was intended to

replace, and the Tribes that were decriminalised were relocated to a category known as De-Notified

Tribes as a result of the decriminalisation (DNT). Prejudices, conceptions, and animosity, which had

been ingrained in the minds of the people against DNTs, have withstood the test of time and remain

entrenched in our collective consciousness. Many of these tribes continue to suffer significant

societal repercussions as a result of the Act, which was later brought under the purview of the

'Prevention of Anti-Social Activity Act' (PASA).

The majority of them have been denied the status of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or

Other Backward Classes (OBC), which would have otherwise allowed them to benefit from the

benefits of reservation under Indian law, as a result of which seats are reserved for them in

government jobs and educational institutions, as well as other benefits.

Since its passage, the criminal recognition accorded to certain tribes as a result of the Act has not

only been internalised by society, but has also been internalised and documented by the police

forces, whose official methodology, even after the repeal of the Act, has frequently been reflected in

the characteristics of manifestation of an age initiated by the Act, where characteristics of a crime

committed by certain tribes were carefully studied and later documented. The De-Notified and

Nomadic Tribes, a socioeconomic category of 60 million people in India, continue to be marginalised

by the general public and have limited access to educational opportunities, healthcare, government

schemes, housing, legal rights and a variety of other benefits.


This recommendation was made by the National Commission for De-Notified, Nomadic, and Semi-

Nomadic Tribes (NCDNSNT), which is part of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, in

2008, and was endorsed by the Supreme Court. Similar reservations were also made available to SCs

and STs at the time. However, nothing was done about it. In addition, the commission suggested

that the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be extended to these tribes as a

result of the recommendations of the commission. The betterment of these De-Notified tribes is

being pursued by a large number of governmental and non-governmental organisations through a

variety of schemes and educational initiatives today.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more