The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has asserted that a State law enacted under the State’s legislative competence (Entry 5 of List II of the Constitution) applies to the entire State, including Scheduled Areas, unless its application is specifically barred or modified by the Governor via a notification under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule. In the absence of such a notification for the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, the Act remains validly applicable to Scheduled Areas.
The Court explained that Article 243-ZC(1) of the Constitution does not create an absolute bar on municipal governance in Scheduled Areas, and it only excludes the automatic application of the constitutional provisions of Part IX-A. Thus, the State Legislature’s power to legislate on municipalities for Scheduled Areas remains intact, subject to the overriding authority of the Governor under the Fifth Schedule.
The inclusion of a Scheduled Area within municipal limits does not extinguish its constitutional status, and all protections under the Fifth Schedule, the role of the Tribes Advisory Council, and other constitutional safeguards for Scheduled Tribes continue to operate with full force, as this status can only be altered by a Presidential notification, added the Court.
The Court also said that once a Scheduled Area is lawfully included in a municipality, its territorial character legally transforms from a “village” to a “municipal area”. Consequently, the institutional framework of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), which is designed for rural panchayat-based governance, cannot continue in its full operational form.
In the legislative vacuum created by the non-enactment of the Municipalities (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Bill, 2001 (MESA), the Court explained that the administration of municipalised Scheduled Areas must proceed on a “hybrid footing”. Municipal functions (civic services, taxation, etc.) shall be governed by the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, while the constitutional protections of the Fifth Schedule (concerning land, tribal welfare, resources) remain paramount. Accordingly, the Tribal consultative mechanisms under PESA shall continue in an advisory capacity to safeguard tribal interests.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati therefore, ruled that the inclusion of Scheduled Areas within municipal limits under the 2009 Act is not unconstitutional per se in the absence of an exclusionary notification by the Governor. Thus, the constitutional status of the Scheduled Area and all protections under the Fifth Schedule remain undiluted and continue with full force.
The Bench observed that until the Parliament enacts a law like MESA, the administration of such areas shall follow a “constitutionally harmonised hybrid framework”, balancing municipal functions under the State Act with the overriding protections of the Fifth Schedule. Tribal institutions shall continue in a consultative and advisory capacity. The Bench stated that the State Government and the Governor must ensure that all future actions in these areas strictly conform to the protective discipline of the Fifth Schedule.
The Bench observed that ‘Scheduled Areas’ are a constitutional device to secure the political, economic, and cultural autonomy of India’s tribal communities under a distinct and self-contained governance architecture provided by the Fifth Schedule. Since the constitutional scheme does not place Scheduled Areas outside the reach of all State legislation, the Bench said that the laws of general application continue to operate in Scheduled Areas unless excluded or modified by the Governor under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule.
On the scope of Article 243-ZC, the Bench states that “Nothing in Part IX-A shall apply to the Scheduled Areas”, is structural and protective. It prevents the automatic extension of the constitutional framework of municipalities (Part IX-A) into Scheduled Areas but does not invalidate or prohibit the operation of State municipal legislation per se. Hence, the effect of Article 243-ZC is “not prohibition but protection” from unmediated constitutional municipalisation.
Lastly, the Bench expressed “serious constitutional concern” over the prolonged absence of a Parliamentary enactment extending the municipal framework to Scheduled Areas, as contemplated under Article 243-ZC(3). It noted that the proposed Municipalities (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Bill, 2001 (MESA) has remained in “legislative limbo”, creating a constitutional vacuum where municipalisation proceeds without a tailored legal framework to protect tribal interests.
Briefly, the case comprises a batch of petitions challenging the legality and constitutional validity of notifications issued by the State of Rajasthan, whereby, the State, exercising powers under Section 3 read with Section 329 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, included various villages and gram panchayats, which are constitutionally notified ‘Scheduled Areas’, within the territorial limits of municipal bodies.
The lead case specifically challenged the notification dated December 26, 2024, which brought Revenue Village Balicha, a notified Scheduled Area, within the limits of the Udaipur Municipal Corporation. The petitioners argued that this action was unconstitutional as it violated the special governance regime for Scheduled Areas provided under Article 244(1) and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. They contended that Part IX-A of the Constitution (concerning Municipalities) is expressly barred from applying to Scheduled Areas by Article 243-ZC(1), and therefore, the State lacked the legislative competence to apply municipal laws to these territories.
The State (respondents) countered that the notifications were a lawful exercise of statutory powers, and argued that State laws of general application continue to apply to Scheduled Areas unless their operation is specifically excluded or modified by the Governor through a notification under Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule. Since no such notification excluding the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 was issued, the Act remained operative.
Appearances:
Advocates Moti Singh, Siddharth Mewara, Ramawtar Singh, Dr. Pratishtha Dave, Pranjul Mehta, Sharad Kothari, Nikhil Dungawat, Abhishek Pareek, and Ripudaman Singh, for the Petitioners
AAG Rajesh Panwar, I.R. Choudhary, and Nathu Singh Rathore, along with Advocates Pawan Bharti, Anurag Shukla, Arpit Samariya, Ram Awtar Sikhwal, and Ayush Gehlot, for the Respondents
