The Supreme Court has set aside Calcutta High Court orders concerning a student’s Scheduled Tribe status and remitted the factual determination to the Tehsildar, Car Nicobar. It directed a decision within three months of receipt of its order and protected the student’s ongoing education until that decision.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that the High Court erred by taking over the Tehsildar’s role in determining a student’s claim to Scheduled Tribe status in The Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Others v. Nazreen Banu & Another.
The order, passed on November 3, 2026, by Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, was uploaded on November 7. The Court left the status question for fresh determination and expressly protected the education already being undertaken.
Certificate claim reached the High Court
The student’s mother belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, while her father does not. The respondents applied for an ST certificate and approached the High Court after receiving no response.
During the writ proceedings, the Single Judge directed the Tehsildar to decide the application. After the authority rejected it, the Single Judge quashed that rejection and allowed the writ petition. The Division Bench dismissed the Administration’s appeal.
Factual determination belongs before the authority
In paragraphs 6 and 7, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had taken on the Tehsildar’s role in determining whether the student belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community and was entitled to its benefits.
The order referred to the mother’s community status and the question of the environment in which the student had been brought up. It treated the determination as a question of fact and held that the Administration’s writ appeal should not have been dismissed on that basis.
The Bench set aside both High Court orders and remitted the issue to the Tehsildar, Car Nicobar. The authority must consider the Administration’s views and hear the respondents before deciding.
Education protected during reconsideration
The Tehsildar must pass appropriate orders within three months from receipt of a copy of the Supreme Court’s order. Under paragraph 11, the student’s ongoing education must not be affected in any manner until the matter is decided.
The ruling neither finally grants nor finally rejects the student’s ST entitlement. It directs the competent authority to determine the facts, while preserving her education during that process.
Case: The Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Others v. Nazreen Banu & Another
Number: Civil Appeal No. 14188/2026, arising from SLP(C) No. 25728/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale
Order Date: November 3, 2026
Outcome: Appeal allowed; ST-status issue remitted to Tehsildar; ongoing education protected pending decision.