The Coordination Committee of Tribal Organisations of Assam (CCTOA) on Thursday rejected the recommendations of the Assam government's Group of Ministers (GoM) to grant Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to six communities in the state.
The decision was taken based on the recommendations of a Consultative Committee chaired by human rights activist Suhas Chakma. A summary of the committee's report was released through a press statement at a press conference held in Guwahati on January 2, 2026.
The six communities proposed for inclusion in the ST list are Tai Ahom, Chutia, Moran, Motok, Koch-Ranbongshi and Tea and Ex-Tea Garden Tribes.
Explaining the reasons for rejection, the CCTOA said that under the Constitution of India, Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are distinct categories. While SCs are identified on the basis of caste hierarchy, STs are identified based on specific tribal characteristics such as distinctive culture, geographical isolation and social backwardness, as laid down by the Lokur Committee in 1965.
The CCTOA pointed out that in 1993, after research by the Assam Institute of Research for Tribals and Scheduled Castes, these six communities were recommended as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and later notified as such by the National Commission for Backward Classes. Once classified as OBCs or Scheduled Castes, they cannot be reclassified as Scheduled Tribes for political reasons, the committee said.
Regarding Tea and Ex-Tea Garden Tribes, the CCTOA stated that all expert committees since Independence have opposed granting them ST status. It cited the 1947 report submitted to the Constituent Assembly, which clearly excluded tea garden labourers from the list of Assam's tribes, as well as the Lokur Committee report of 1965, which did not recommend them for ST status.
On the Koch-Rajbongshi issue, the CCTOA said Koch and Rajbongshi are two distinct communities and should not be treated as one. It noted that Koch were identified as a Scheduled Caste in West Bengal under the 1950 Constitutional Order and therefore cannot be classified as Scheduled Tribes in Assam.
The committee further stated that Tai Ahoms, Chutiyas, Morans and Mataks are part of the mainstream Assamese society and were not included in the ST list under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, nor identified as STs by the Lokur Committee.
The CCTOA also questioned the credibility of expert committees whose recommendations were used by the Assam government, stating that many members were nominated by community organisations and were not independent. It added that expert findings cannot be selectively ignored or altered by the state or central authorities.
According to the CCTOA, the demand for ST status by the six communities is primarily aimed at securing political reservation, especially in Panchayats, Autonomous Councils and the State Assembly, as there is no seat reservation for OBCs in the Assam Legislative Assembly. The committee said these communities already enjoy educational and employment benefits through 27 per cent OBC reservation and various development councils.
The CCTOA warned that granting ST status to the six communities would severely affect the political and constitutional rights of existing Scheduled Tribes, reducing their representation at all levels, including Panchayats, Autonomous Councils, the State Assembly and Parliament.
It also highlighted that Assam's reservation quota already stands at 59 per cent, exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling fixed by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. Inclusion of more communities under the ST category could push the reservation level beyond 70 per cent, which would be unconstitutional.
The committee said the Assam government's recommendations violate the assurance given by an all-party delegation of the Assam Legislative Assembly that the rights of existing STs would not be affected.
Calling the recommendations illegal and unconstitutional, the CCTOA formally rejected the proposal to grant ST status to the six communities.