A recent ruling from Jharkhand high court symbolises this duality. The court rejected an FIR filed by an Adivasi woman against a government officer who referred to her as an “insane Adivasi,” under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter PoA, Act). This rejection represents judicial myopia, failing to recognise the term’s colonial, casteist misuse and the pervasive discrimination Adivasi communities still endure. 'Insane Adivasi' Remark: How the Court Failed to Grasp the Deeper Prejudice Against Oppressed Communities - The Wire
As Jaipal Singh Munda, famously declared in 1946: “As a jungli, as an Adibasi, I am not expected to understand the legal intricacies… You cannot teach democracy to the tribal people; you have to learn democratic ways from them.”
His words framed Adivasi as a moral and constitutional claim to dignity and self-determination. Yet, in everyday usage, Adivasi is often weaponised as an insult.
Furthermore, terms such as Vanvasi have been co-opted into a political project aimed at assimilating tribal identities into Hinduism.
The problem arises when institutions, even the courts, fail to differentiate between the pride in self-identification as Adivasi and the prejudice, unconstitutional vocabulary attached to its use by others. Not only does this perpetuate harmful stereotypes, but it also violates the constitutional promise of dignity, equality, and respect for all citizens regardless of background.
The high court of Jharkhand quashed an FIR filed by Sunita Marandi, who was publicly insulted and called an “insane Adivasi” by a government officer. The reasons for the quashing find the judiciary even more detached from reality on the ground. The court’s reasoning, that the term “Adivasi” doesn’t appear in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 for Jharkhand, and hence the case under the Act cannot be made out against the accused, demonstrates a troubling adherence to legal formalism at the expense of justice.
05/07/2025