Supreme Court of India
ACTION COMMITTEE ON ISSUE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 262
- Decided
- 18 July 1994
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe identified in relation to a particular State is entitled to the constitutional benefits only in that State and not in any other State to which he migrates.
Summary
The Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging Maharashtra's denial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe benefits to persons who had migrated from other states. The petition argued that the denial violated Articles 14, 15(1), 16(2), 19 and the spirit of Articles 341 and 342. The Court examined the language of Articles 341 and 342, the President's power to specify castes/tribes "in relation to" each State, and the constitutional intent to provide protection only within the State of origin. Relying on the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean Seth G.S. Medical College, the Court held that a scheduled caste/tribe member does not acquire the same benefits in a State to which he migrates. Consequently, the Maharashtra circulars and the cut‑off dates were upheld as constitutionally valid. The petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe specified in relation to one State is entitled to claim the benefits and privileges of that category in another State to which he has migrated.
- Whether the Maharashtra Government's circulars and the cut‑off dates (August 10 1950 for SCs and September 6 1950 for STs) violate Articles 14, 15(1), 16(2) and 19 of the Constitution.
- Whether the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 adopted by the Government of India is ultra vires the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15(1), s. Article 16(2), s. Article 19, s. Article 21, s. Article 341, s. Article 342
- Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
- Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950
- Representation of the People Act, 1950s. Section 20
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976
Subjects
Scheduled CastesScheduled TribesInter‑state migrationReservationConstitutional interpretationArticles 341 and 342Fundamental rightsEquality before law
Judgment
A ACTION COMMITTEE ON ISSUE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE
TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
·B
JULY 18, 1994
[A.M. AHMADI, P.B.SAWANT, M.M. PUNCHHI, YOGESHWAR
DAYAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]
c Constitution of India--Anicles !4, 15, 16, 19, 21, 341 and 341-Con-
stitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1951}-C'onstitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950--Schedukd Castes and Scheduled T1ibe.1· specified in relation to
a State or Union Tenito~Such persons migrating from State of origin to
another State where it is specified to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
D Tribes in relation to that State-Denial of benefits and privileges available to
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe specified in relation to that State to
such migrated persom-Whether violative of Ans. 14, 15(1), 16(2), 19, 341
and 342 of Constitution-Held, no.
Words and phrases--''ln relation to that State" and "for the purposes of
E this Constitution''-Meaning of
The State or Maharashtra had denied the benefit and privil~ges
available to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in relation
to !hat State to members or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
F belonging to other States who had migrated from other States to the State
or Maharashtra. These benefits and privileges were denied on the basis or
certain circulars and letters issued by the Government or India and
consequential instructions issued by the State or Maharashtra indicating
that members bt:longing to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
specified in relation to any other State shall not be entitled to the benefits
G and privileges accorded by the State or Maharashtra on August 10, 1950
in the case or Scheduled Caste and September 6, 1950 in the case or
Scheduled Tribes. These are the dates on which the President first promul-
gated the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitu-
tion (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 made in exercise or powers conferred
H by Article 341(1) and Article 342(1) respectively or the Constitution of
714
ACTION COMMllTEE SC & ST•·. U.0.1. 715
India. A
On March 22, 1977 the Governn1ent of India issued a communication
addressed to Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and IJnion
Territories, imposing inter-state area restrictions for the purpose of avail-
ing the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe benefits and privileges. It was
stated that these restrictions had been deliberately imposed so that the
B
people belonging to the specific community residing in a specific area
which had been assessed to quality for the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribes status only benefit f'rom the facilities provided for them. Since the
people belonging to the same caste but living in different States/Union
Territories may not both be treated to belonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribe c
or vice-versa the residence of a particular person in a JJarticular locality
assumed a special significance. The residence of a person on the date of
the notification of the Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribe in
relation to that locality cannot be the permanent residence, thus a person
who was temporarily away from his permanent place or abode at the time D
of the notification of the Presidential Order applicable in his case for
examplf, to earn a living or seek education, etc. could also be regarded as
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe if his Caste/Tribe has been specified
in that order in relation to his State/Union Territory. But he cannot be
treated as sllch in relation to the place of his temporary residence even if
his Caste/Tribe has been scheduled in respect of that area in any Presiden- E
tial Order.
The Communication further stated that with a view to ensure the
veracity of permanent residence of a person and that of the Caste/Tribe to
which he claims to belong, the Government of India made special F
provisions in the proforma prescribed for the issue of such certificates.
In order to ensure that competent authorities should alone issue such
certificates, it was emphasised that the Revenue Authority of one District
would not be competent to issue such a Certificate in respect of persons
whose place of permanent residence at the time of the notification of a
particular Presidential Order has been in ·a different State/Union Ter- G
v
ritory. In regard to persons born after the date of the notification of the
relevant Presidential Order, the communication stated that the place of
residence for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe Certificate was the place of permanent abode of their parents at the ,
time of the notification under which they claim to belong to such .a H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11994] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A caste/tribe. Subsequently, in modification of the earlier orders, the
prescribed authority of State/Union Territory was permitted to issue the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificate to a person who had migrated
from another State on production of a ge1_1uine certificate issued to his
father by prescribed authority of the State of the father's origin, except
tt·here the pre~cribed authority considered a detailed enquiry necessary
B through the State of origin before issue of certificate. It was further stated
that the certificate will be issued irrespective of whether the Casteffribe
in question is Scheduled or not in relation to the State/Union Territory to
which the person has migrated. It was clarified that a Scheduled
Caste/Tribe person who had migrated from the State of origin to some
c other State for the purpose of education, employment, etc., will be deemed.
to be Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin only and will be
entitled to derive benefit from that State and not from the State to which
he had mig•ated.
Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution wa_s filed in a
D
representative capacity and by way of the Public Interest Litigation chal·
lenging the communications/ circulars issued by the Government of India.·
The petitioners contend that the denial of the benefits and the privileges
by the State of Maharashtra were violative of the fundamental 'rights
conferred on citizens by Articles 14, 15(1), 16(2) and 19 of the Constitution,
E besides being contrary to the letter and spirit of Articles 341 and 342 of
the Constitution. It was further alleged that the cut off date was arbitrarily
fixed and persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe con-
tinued to experience difficulties in securing certificates from the State of
origin as well as the State to which they had migrated on account of the
instructions issued by the Government of India as contained in the com-
F
munication dated March 22, 1977 and subsequent communications.
The State contended that the question raised in this petition had
been conclusilvely answered by a constitution Bench of this Court in l"v!arrie
Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130.
G The expression "in relation to that State" read with words "for the purpose
of this Constitution" in Articles 341 and 342 left no manner of doubt that
the specification made was in relation to that State for which it was made
i.e. the State of origin and not the state to which a person migrated. That
is because the concept of backwardness in Articles 15 and 16 is a relative
H one, varying from area to area and region to region and hence it is not
ACTION COMMITfEE SC & ST i·. U.0.1. 717
permissible to generalise any Caste or any Tribe as a Scheduled Caste or A
as Scheduled Tribe for the whole of the country. Therefore, a person
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to a State
would require necessary protection and benefits in that State to 'being
about equality, but the social environment of the State to which he
migrates may not be the same as in the State of his origin and, therefore,
he cannot claim the benefits and privileges available to a Schedule Caste
B
and Scheduled Tribe in the State to which he migrates.
The petition raised tho following question for determination :
Where a person belonging to a Caste or Tribe specified for the C
purpose of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
in relation to Statev A, migrates to State B, where a Caste or Tribe with the
same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheiluled Tribe in relation to that State B, will
that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissible to
persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and or Scheduled Tribe in State D
B.
Dismissing the petition, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The language of Clause (!) of both the Articles 341 and
342 is quite plain and unambiguous. It clearly states that the President E
may specify the castes or tribes, as the case may be, in relation to each
State or Union Territory for the purposes of the Constitution. It must also
be realised that before specifying the castes or tribes under either of the
two article the President is, in the case of State, obliged to consult (iover-
nor of that State. Therefore, when a class is specified by the President, F
after consulting the Governor of State A, it is difficult to understand how
that specification made in relation to that State can be treated as specifica·
tion in relation to any other State whose Governor the President has not
consulted. It may be true that this specification was not only in relation to
a given State whose Governor has been consulted but is 'for the purpose
of this Constitution' meaning thereby that the various provisions of the G
Constitution which deal with Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, but the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of
the country must be given protection so long as and to and to the extent
they are entitled to, in order to become equals with others and those who
migrate to other areas should ensure that they make way for the disad· H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. l S.C.R.
'
A vantaged and disabled of that part ofthe community who suffer disabilities'
in those areas. [735·A·G)
1.2 The consideration for specifying a particular caste or tribe or
class for Inclusion in the list or Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or
backward classes in a given State depend on the nature and extent or
B disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class
In that State which may be totally non-est in another State to which persons
belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally It may be that a caste or
tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the
considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally
c different. So also the degree or disadvantages of the various elements
which constitute the input for specification ·may also be totally different.
Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a
Scheduled Caste does not necessary mean that if there be another caste
bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to
D the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admis·
sible to a member of the Schedule Caste of the latter State for the purposes
orthe Constitution. This aspect had to be kept in mind and which was very
much in the minds of the Constitution makers as is evident form the choice
of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. Therefore, the view
expressed'in the communication dated February 22, 1985 be upheld and
E the challenge of the petitioner that the said view was ultra vires Article 14,
15, 16 or 21 of the Constitution be negatived. [736-B-E)
Manie Chandra Skehhar Rao v. Dean Seth G.S. Medical College &
Others, (1990) Supp. 1 SCALE 7 = [1990) 3 SCC ·130, relied on, where
decisions of Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts on one hand and Orissa,
F
Bombay and Punjab & Haryana High Courts on the other were considered
and latter view was upheld. The view taken by the Constitution Bench did
not require reconsideration or reference to a larger Bench. [738-A)
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 898 of
G 1990.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Raju Ramacharndran and Joseph Pookkatta for the Petitioners in
H W.P. & Res. No. 1.
AcnON COMMITfEE SC & STv. U.O.l. IAHMADI, J.J· 719
G.B. Sathe and A.S. Bhasme for the petitioner in SLPs. & Res. No. A
2 in W.P.
K. Lahiri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Union of
India.
D.N. Mishra for M/s. JBD & Co. for the Res. No. 9 in SLPs. B
S.C. Birla for the Res. No. 5 in SLPs.
S.V. Deshpande for the Res. No. 4 in SLPs.
The Judgments of the Court was delivered by c
AHMADI, J. Where a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified
for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State B where a caste
or tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the
Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to D
that State B, will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits
admissible to persons belonging to the Scheduled Casks and/or Scheduled
Tribes in State B, is the neat question raised in this petition brought under
Article 32 of the Constitution by one Shri Devidas Kuberdas Kantharia in
his personal capacity as well as in his capacity as the Chairman of E
Petitioner No. 1 Committee. The grievance sought to be projected in this
petition, which has been brought in a representative capacity and by way
of a Public Interest Litigation, is that State B denies the benefits and
privileges admissible to such persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes who have migrated from State A or any other State.
Before we set out the specific nature of the grievance it may be ad- F
vantageous to refer to the provisions in the Constitution which have a
bearing on the question at issue.
In part XVI of the Constitution special provisions relating to certain
classes including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been made. G
Article 330 and 332 provide for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in the Legislative
Assemblies of the States. Article 335 enjoins that claims of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration in making
all appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the
Union or of a State. Article 338 provides for the appointment of a Special H
'
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Officer for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to investigate all mat-
ters relating to the safeguards provided for them and to report to the
President upon .the working of those safeguards. Then come Articles 341
and 342 which may be reproduced at this stage :
"341. Scheduled Castes. - (1) The President may with respect to
B any State or Union Territory, and where it is a Stale after consult-
ation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the
castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or
tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed
to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory,
c as the case may be.
342. Scheduled Tribes. - (1) The Presid.ent may with respect to
any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after con-
sultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify
the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes
D or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitu-
tion be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or
Union Territory, as the case may be."
Clause (2) of Article 341 empowers Parliament to include or exclude by
E law from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes specified in the
notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or
group within any caste, race or tribe. Similar provision is to be foun!f in
clause (2) of Article 342 in relation to any tribe or tribal community, etc.
Both these provisions further state that save as aforesaid a notification
issued under clause (1) of the respective Articles shall not be varied by any
F subsequent notification.
On a plain reading of clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 it is a
manifest that the power of the President is limited to specifying the castes
or tribes which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to
G be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or a Union
Territory, as the case may be. Once a notification is issued under clause
(1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Parliament can be law
include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes, specified in the notification, any caste or tribe but save for that
H limited purpose the notification issued under clause (1), shall not be varied
ACTION COMMITIEE SC & STv. U.0.1. [AHMADI, J.] 721
by any subsequent notification. What is important to notice is that the A
castes or tribes have to be specified in relation to a given State or Union
Territory. That means a given caste or tribe can be a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State or Union Territory for which it
is specified. These are the relevant provisions with which we shall be
concerned while dealing with the grievance made in this petition. B
The Petitioners herein are aggrieved because the state of
Maharashtra has denied the benefits and privileges available to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in relation_ to that State to members
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to other States C
who have migrated from other States to the State of Maharashtra. These
benefits and privileges are denied on the basis of certain circulars and
letters issued by the Government of India and consequential instructions
issued by the State of Maharashtra indicating that members belonging to
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified in relation to any
other State shall not be entitled to the benefits and _privileges accorded by D
the State of Maharashtra unless the concerned person is shown to be a
' permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra on August 10, 1950 in the
case of Scheduled Castes and September 6, 1950 in the case of Scheduled
Tribes. These are the dates on which the President first promulgated The
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and The Constitution E
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Petitioners, therefore, contended that
the denial of the benefits and the privileges by the State of Maharashtra is
violative of the fundamental rights conferred on citizens by Articles 14,
15(1), 16(2) and 19 of the Constitution, besides being, contrary to the letter
and spirit of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The petitioners F
contend that a bare perusal of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,
1950 and The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act,
1976 would show the same castes and tribes specified in respect of more
than one State. Those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the G
Scheduled Tribes, wherever situate; are economically backward. Besides
on account of Social and economic backwardness they have to suffer a host
of indignities and atrocities and are very often compelled to migrate from
nne State to another in search of livelihood or to escape the wrath ~f their
oppressors. Earlier they did not experience any difficulty in obtaining H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. lS.C.R.
A caste/tribe ~ertificates to secure benefits available to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra. The situation, however,
changed drastically after the Government of India issued a communication
addressed to Chief Secretaries to all State Governments/Union Territories
on March 22, 1977.
B
Before we refer to the contents of the communication dated March
22, 1977 it may be advantageous to notice the relevant provisions of the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 made in exercise of powers conferred by
Article 341(1) and Article 342(1) respectively of I.he Constitution. In the
C order first mentioned Clause (2) provides as under : -
"2. Subject to the provisions of this Order, the castes, races or
tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes specified in
Parts to (XXII) of the Schedule to this order shall, in relation to
D the States to which those Parts respectively relate, be deemed to
be Scheduled Castes so far as regards member thereof resident in
the localities specified in relation to them in those Parts of the
Schedule. 11
Clause (2) of the second mentioned Order reads as under :
E
nz. The Tribes or tribal communities) or part of, or groups within,
tribes or trial communities, specified in Parts I to XIX of the
Schedule to this Order shall, in relation to the State to which those
parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far
F as regards members thereof residents in the localities specified in
relation to them respectively in those Parts of that Scheduled."
Tlle Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs noticed
that certificates belonging to a particular Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
were not issued strictly in accordance with the principles governing the
G issue of such certificates presumably on account of lack of understanding
of the legal position regarding the concept of the term "residence" on the
part of the concerned authorities. With a view to clarifying the legal
position the communication of March 22, 1977 came to be issued. The
relevant part of that communication may be reproduced for ready refer-
H ence;
ACTION COMMITTEE SC & STv. U.0.1. [AHMADI, J.) 723
"As required under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the A
President has, with respect to every State and Union Territory and
where it is State after consultation with the Governor of the
concerned State, issued orders notifying various Castes and Tribes
as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State
or Union Territory from time to time. The inter-state area restric- B
tions have been deliberately imposed so that the people belonging
to the specific community residing in a specific area, which has
been assessed to qualify for the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe Status, only benefit from the facilities provided for them.
Since the people belonging to the same caste but living in different C
State/Union Territories may not both be treated to belong to
Scheduled Caste!Tribe or vice-versa. Thus the residence of a par-
ticular person in a particular locality assumes a special significance.
This residence has not to be understood in the liberal or ordinary
sense of the word. On the other hand it cannotes the permanent D
residence of a person on the date of the notification of the
Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribes in relation to that
locality. Thus a person who is temporarily away from his per-
manent place or abode at the time of the notification of the
Presidential Order applicable in his case, say for example, to earn
a living or seek education, etc., can also be regarded as a Scheduled E
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, if his caste/tribe
has been specified in that order in relation to his State/Union
Territory. But he cannot be treated as such in relation to the place
of his temporary residence notwithstanding the fact that the name
of his caste/tribe has been scheduled in respect of that area in any -F
Presidential Order."
The communication further states that with a view to ensuring the veracity
of permanent residence of a person and that of the caste/tribe to which he
claims to belong," the Government of India made a special provision in the G
proforma proscribed for the issue of such certificates. In order to ensure
that competent authorities should alone issue such certificates the Govern-
ment of India (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) by
a letter dated August 6, 1975 indicated the authorities locality-wise who
should issue the certificates. The communication then proceeds to add : H
724 SUPREME COURTREPORTS [1994] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A "Thus the Revenue Authority of one District would not be com-
petent to issue such a certificate in respect of persons belonging
to •.nother District. Nor can such an authority of one State/Union
Territory issue such certificates in respect of persons whose place
of permanent residence at the time of the notification of a par-
ticular residential Order, has been in a different State/Union
B 11
Territory.
This was emphasised because only the revenue authorities of the locality
of which the individual is the resident alone would have access to revenue
records to be in a position to make reliable enquiries before the issuance
C of the certificate. In regard to persons born after the date of the notifica-
tion of the relevant Presidential Order, the communication states that the
place of residency for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe certificate is the place of permanent abode of their
parents at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order under
D which they claim to belong to such a caste/tribe.
Subsequent to the issuance of the said communication by the
Government of India, the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes submitted his 22nd Report wherein he pointed out that
instances had come to his notice where false certificates were produced by
E Non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons to secure government ser-
vice or admission to educational institutions. The report disclosed that such
certificates were being issued without the authority issuing the same being
even aware of basic requirements necessary for such certificates. On the
basis of the recommendations made by the Commissioner and having
F regard to the procedure adopted by the State of West Bengal which was
commended for acceptance by the Commissioner, the Government of
Maharashtra, in modification of the existing orders directed that caste
certificates issued by the Special Executive Magistrates should be treated
as 'preliminary certificates' and final certificates should be issued only by
the Executive Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate in that
G behalf. It was also directed that Special Executive Magistrates should
certify only the castes to which they themselves belonging. The Government
state that if despite these instructions incorrect caste certificates are issued,
a serious view will be taken. In the instructions appended to the said
Government Order it was, inter alia stated in Paragraphs 13 and 19 as
H under:
ACTION COMMITfEE SC & STi·. U.0.1. [AHMADl,J.] 725
"13. Caste certificates should be issued only to those who have A
ordinary residence of the place within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority. Ordinary residence means residence which
is not for the purpose of service, employment, education, confine-
ment in jail! etc. In short, it means permanent residence and not
a temporary residence.
B
19. Where a person migrates from one State to another, he can
claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste or a scheduled Tribe only
in relation to the State from which he has migrated. The competent
authority should not, therefore, issue a caste certificate to a person
from other State, whether he is ordinary (sic) residing in this State C
or not."
By the subsequent letter of February 12, 1981, it was further clarified that
in order to become eligible for being treated to be a member of Scheduled
Casteffribe in relation to the State of Maharashtfa a person should be a
permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra before August 10, 1950 D
and September 6, 1950, respectively, the dates of the notifications of the
respective Presidential Orders of 1950 scheduling the Castes{fribes in
relation to the State of Maharashtra. Since there was no State of
Maharashtra in 1950 it would be reasonable to understand it to mean the
geographical are a now forming part of the State of Maharashtra. At the E
foot of the proforma of the Certificate the following note was appended :
Note : "The term "ordinarily reside(s)" used here will have same
meaning as in Section 20 of the Representation of Peoples Act,
1950."
F
Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, reads as under:
"20 Meaning of "ordinarily resident". - (1) A person shall not be
deemed to be ordinary resident in a constituency on the ground
only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling house therein.
G
(lA) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of
ordinary residence shall not by reason thereof cease to be ordinari-
ly resident therein.
• (lB) A member of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State shall
not during the term of his office cease to be .ordinarily resident in H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A the Constituency in the electoral roll of which he is registered as
an elector at the time of his election as such member, by reason
of his absence from that constituency in connection with his duties
as such member.
(2) A person who is a patient in any establishment maintained
B wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of persons suf-
fering from mental illness or mental defectiveness, or who is
detained in prison or other legal custody at any place, shall not
by reason thereof be deemed to be ordinarily resident therein.
c (3) any person having a service qualification shall be deemed to
be ordinarily resident on any date in the constituency in which, but
for his having such service qualification, he would have been
ordinarily resident on that date.
(4) Any person holding any office in India declared by the Presi-
D dent in consultation with the Election Commission to be an office
to which the provisions of this sub-section apply, shall be deemed
to be ordinarily resident on any date in the constituency in which,
but for the holding of any such office, he would have been ordinari- ,
ly resident on that date.
E (5) The statement of any such person as is referred to in sub-sec-
tion (3) or sub-section (4) made in the prescribed from and verified
in the prescribed manner, that but for his having the service
qualification or but for his holding any such office as is referred
to in sub-section (4) he would have been ordinarily resident in a
F specified place on any date, shall , in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, be accepted as correct.
(6) The wife of any such person as is referred to in sub-section
(3) or sub-section (4) shall, if she be ordinarily residing with such
person be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the constituency
G specified by such person under sub-section (5).
(7) If in any case a question arises as to where a person is ordinarily
resident at any relevant time, the question shall be deten£ined with
reference to all the facts of the case and to such rules as may be
H made in this behalf by the Central Government in consultation with
ACTION COMM!TfEE SC & ST1·. U.0.1. jAHMADl.J.] 727
the Election Commission. A
(8) In sub-sections (3) and (5) "service qualification" means
(a) being a member of the armed forces of the Union ; or
(b) being a member of a force to which the provisions of the B
Armed Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), have been made applicable
whether with or without modifications; or
( c) being-a member of an armed police force of a State, who
is served outside that State; or
c
(d) being a person who is employed under the Government
of India, in a post outside India."
In course of time persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
who had migrated from one State to another in search of employment or D
for education purposes and the like, experienced great difficulty in obtain-
ing Caste/Tribe Certificates from the State from which they had migrated.
To remove this difficulty experienced by them the earlier instructions
contained in the letter of March 22, 1977, and the subsequent letter of
March 29, 1982, were modified, in that, the prescribed authority of a
State/Union territory was permitted to issue the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled E
Tribe Certificate to a person who had migrated from another State on
production of a genuine certificate issued to his father by a prescribed
authority of the State of the father's origin except where the prescribed
authority considered a detailed enquiry necessary through the State of
origin before issue of certificate. It was further stated that the certificate F
will be issued irrespective of whether the Caste/Tribe in question is
Scheduled or not in relation to the State/Union territory to which the
person has migrated. Of course, this facility did not alter the Scheduled
Caste/Tribe status of the person in relation to the one or the other State.
The revised form of the certificate was circulated. Further, it was clarified
that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe person who has migrated from the State of G
origin to JOme other State for the purpose of education, employment, etc.,
will be deemed to be Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin only
and will be entitled to derive benefits from that State and not from the
State to which he had migrated. By this clarificatory order forwarded to
Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories, the only facility extended H
72$ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A was that the prescribed authority of the State/Union Territory to which a
person had migrated was permitted to issue the certificate to the migrant
on production of the genuine certificate issued to his father by the
prescribed authority of the State of the father's origin provided that the ·
prescribed authority could always enquire into the matter through State of
origin if he entertained any doubt. The certificate to be so issued would be
B in relation to the State/Union Territory from which the concerned person
had migrated and not in relation to the State/Union Territory to which he
had migrated. Therefore, the migrant would not be entitled to derive
benefits in the State to which he had migrated on the strength of such a
certificate. This was re-iterated in a subsequent letter dated October 15,
c 1987 addressed to Smt. Shashi Mishra, Secretary, Social Welfare, etc., in
the State of Maharashtra. In paragraph 4 of that letter it was specifically
stated :
"Further, a Scheduled Caste persons, who has migrated from the
State of his origin, which is considered to be his ordinary place of
D residence after the issue of the First Presidential Order, 1950, can
get benefit from the State of his origin and not from the State to
which he has migrated."
So stating the proposal regarding reduction in the period of cut off point
E of 1950 for migration was spurned. It was stated that the proposal could
have been taken care of only if the lists of Scheduled ·castes and Scheduled
Tribes were made on All India basis which, it was said, was not feasible in
view of the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. It will
thus, be seen that so far as the Government of India is concerned, since
F the date of issuance of the communication dated March 22, 1977, it has
firmly held the view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person who
migrates from the State of his origin to another State in search of employ-
ment or for educational purposes or the like, cannot be treated as a person
belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the State to which
he migrates and hence he cannot claim benefit as such in the latter State.
G
The petitioners contended that having regard to the difficulty ex-
perienced by persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes,
both in the State of origin and in the State to which they migrated, they
were obliged to move the High Court for seeking an apprppriate writ or
H direction on the plea that the cut off date was arbitrarily fixed and was
ACTIONCOMMITIEESC&STv. U.0.1.[AHMADl,J.] 729
therefore violative of Articles 14 and 19 and Articles 341 and 342 of the A
Constitution. Reference has been made by the petitioners to four judg-
ments delivered by the Bombay High Court (i) W.P. No. 1572 of 1980
Bhiwaji Eknath Kawle v. State of Maharashtra, decided by the Aurangabad
Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Kanade and Deshpande, JJ.
on February 3, 1982, (ii) W.P. No. 2499 of 1983 Rajesh Khusalbahai Patel B
v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided by the Bombay High Court, Pendse,
J. On September 19, 1984, (iii) W.P. No. 4018 of 1987 Rajesh Arjun Bhai
Patel v. State of Maharashtra & ors., decided by the Bombay High Court,
Daud, J. on July 31, 1989 and (iv) W.P. No. 2830 of 1989 KD. Borisa &
Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided by the Division Bench of C
Bombay High Court, Mookerjee, C.J. and Sharda Manohar, J., dated
September 28, 1989 granting reliefs to the petitioners. The -petitioners
contend that notwithstanding the pronouncements of the Bomaby High
Court in the aforesaid writ petitions persons belonging to the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled· Trib_es ·continue to experience difficulties in securing
certificates from the State of origin as well as the State to which they had D
migrated on account of the instruction issued by the Government of India
as contained in the communication dated March, 22, 1977 and the sub-
sequent communications referred· to ea~lier. The petitioners have, there-
fore, move this Court so that an authoritative pronouncement of this Court
may introduce a uniform pattern in regard to the issuance of certificates E
to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes without
being compelled to knock at the doors of different High Courts.
In the counter filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, it is
contended that the question raised in this petition has been conclusively
answered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar F
Rao v. Dean Seth G.S. Medical College and others, (1990) Supp. (1) Scale
7 = [1990] 3 sec 130, and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Without prejudice to this preliminary contention, it is pointed out that the
expression 'in relation to that State' read with ~he words 'for the purposes
of this Constitution in Articles 341 and 342 leave on manner of doubt that
the specification made is 'in relation to that State' for which it is made i.e. G
the State of origin and not the State to which a person migrates. That is
because the concept of backwardness in Articles 15 and 16 is a relative one
varying from area to area and region to region and hence it is not permis-
sible to generalise any Caste or any Tribe as a Scheduled Caste or as
Scheduled Tribe for the whole of the contrary. Therefore, a person belong- H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A ing to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to a State would
require necessary protection and benefits in that State to bring about
equality but the social environment of the State to which he migrates may
not be the same as in the State of his origin and therefore he cannot claim
the benefits and privileges available to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in the State to which he migrates. Therefore, the contention of the
B petitioners that on migration the caste or Tribe of the concerned person
does not change and if such person is denied the concessions, benefits and
privileges available to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State
to which lie migrates, such a denial would be in violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution, in that, the right to equality and equal treatment would
C be denied, cannot be sustained. For the very same reason, the challenge to
the communications and circulars issued by the Government of India and
the Government of Maharashtra is without merit. It is, therefore, con-
tended by the deponent that there is no merit in this petition and the saine
should be dismissed.
D Unfortunately, even though the main challenge is to the communica-
tions/circulars issued by the Government of India, no eounter has been
filed on behalf of the Union of India even though considerable time has
elapsed since the issuance of notice on August 17, 1990. Even on February
12, 1991, the learned counsel for the Union of India reported that he had
not been able to obtain instruction from the concerned Ministry as to the
E stand that the Union of India may like to take on the question raised in
this petition. On that occasion, we stated that we consider it necessary that
the Union of India should clearify its stand so that the Court may receive
assistance. from the learned counsel representing the Union of India to
enable it to effectively resolve the issue. Reluctantly, this Court extended
F the time by another two weeks to enable it to do so. The Secretary to the
Ministry of Welfare was also directed to take appropriate steps to ensure
the filing of a counter clarifying the stand of the Union of India before the
next date of hearing, namely, March, 5, 1991. A copy of the order was sent
to the Secretary to enable him to pursue the matter and ensure that the
counter affidavit was filed before the next date. Unfortunately, despite the
G indulgence given by this Court, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the Union of India. What a sorry state of affairs that even after the
highest officer in the Ministry is sounded the lethargy continues. So we
have to decide the issue without a counter from the Central Government.
H The petition came up for final disposal before a Bench of three
ACTION COMMITTEE SC & STv. U.0.1. [AHMADI, J.] 731
learned Judges of this Court on March 12, 1991. Having heard arguments A
for three days, the learning Judges passed the following order on March
15,1991:
"We have heard these matters at some length but we have come
to the conclusion that the problem raised in these petitions is likely
to ·affect various Fundamental issues regarding the recognition of B
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Articles 341 and
342 of the Constitution, read with Presidential Orders in this
context. In our opinion, these ·are appropriate matters to be placed
before a Constitution Bench of this Court. The papers may be
placed before the Chief Justice for necessary directions in this C
behalf.''
That is how the matter came up for final disposal before us.
We may incidentally mention that an interim application No. 1 of
1990 was taken out for permission .to proceed in a representative capacity. D
An order was passed on that application on August 17, 1990 directing
notice to issue returnable on October 3, 1990.
It is a matter of common knowledge that before and during the
British Rule also the social order in India was of graded inequality. During
the freedom struggle some of our leaders strived to bring about social E
integration to give a fillip to the independence movement. The need to
bring about equality was strongly felt. After independence when the Con-
stitution was being framed for free India, considerable emphasis was laid
on the need to secure equality. The debates of the constituent Assembly
bear testimony to this felt need. The Preamble of.our Constitution, which F
is aptly described as the conscience of our Constitution, promises to secure
to all citizens 'equality of status and of opportunity'. In the Chapter on
Fundamental Rights, Article 14 emphatically states that the State shall not
deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of.India. But then the Constitution-Makers were
also aware of the prevailing inequality in the Social structure of the country G
and, therefore, felt the need to correct this imbalance through appropriate
provisions. While Article 15(1) in unmistakable terms provides that the
State shall not discriminate against any·citizen on grounds only of religion,
caste race, sex, place of birth or any of them, Article 15(4) says that nothing
in the foregoing paragraph of the said Article shall prevent the State from H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes. So also Article 16(1) posits that there shall be
equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment
or appointment to any office under the State and clause (2) thereof adds
B that no Citizens shall, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex descent or
.place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for or discriminated
again~! in respect of any employment or office under the State. But then
clause· (4) of Article 16 provides that nothing in the foregoing part of the
' Ar/icle shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reserva-
tion of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens
c which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in services
under the State. Article 19, insofar as relevant for the purposes of this
petition, states that all citizens shall have the right to move freely
throughout the territory of India and to reside and settled in any part of
the territory of India. The submission of the learned counsel for the
D petitioner was that since Article 19 confers a right of free movement
throughout the territory of India and a right to reside and settle in any part
of the territory of India, persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes have a right to move from one State to another without
hindrance and to reside and settled in any other State. There can be no
E doubt that this is a fundamental right and members belonging to the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes specified in one State have a right to
free movement to another State and to reside and settle in the other State
if they so desire. As stated earlier certain privileges have been conferred
·on members belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
Part XVI of the Constitution, namely, Articles 330, 332, 335 and 336 which
F we have referred to earlier. But as pointed out earlier on a plain reading
of Clause (1) of both Articles 341 and 342, extracted earlier, it becomes
obvious that the power of the President is limited to specifying the cas-
tes/tribe" which shall, 'for the purposes of Constitution', be deemed to be
scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes 'in relation to a State or a Union
G Territory', as the case may be. The contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners was that the legal position explained in the communication
of the March 22, 1977 and subsequent communications flowing therefrom
and referred to earlier was not consistent with the language of Articles 341
(1) and 342 (2) and was even otherwise violative of the concept of equality
H enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution. The learned
,,
ACTION COMMITfEE SC & STv. U.0.1. [AHMADI, J.] 733
counsel further pointed out that the decisions of the Bombay High Court A
referred to in the earlier part of this judgment and the decisions of the
Gujarat High Court in Kum. Manju Singh v. 17ie Dean, B.J. Medical
College and others, AIR (1986} Gujarat 175 and State of Gujarat v. R.L.
Patel, AIR (1992) Gujarat 42 as well as the decision of the Karnataka High
Court in P.M. Muni v. Kamataka Public Service Commission, (1981} LAB
B
JC 1345 should be approved as they have rightly held that the words 'for
the purposes of this Constitution' Should not be read as subservient to the
words 'in relation to that State'. If so interpreted the view expressed by the
Government of India in the communication dated March 22, 1977 would
be wholly erroneous and in violation of the fundamental rights referred to
earlier. He, therefore, contended that since the Maharashtra Government C
order of March 21, 1979 follows the interpretation placed by the Govern-
ment of India in the communication of March 22, 1977, the former must
also be held to suffer on the same vice of constitutional invalidity and
opposed to the spirit and purpose of Articles 341(1) and 342(1). On the
other hand the learned counsel for the Union of India, though handicapped D
for want of a counter , and the learned counsel for the State of
Maharashtra placed strong reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in
Mani Chandra and submitted that these very submissions were canvassed
before the Constitution Bench by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, and were
spurned. If we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents that the point at issue in this petition stands covered by the E
decision of the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid case nothing further
would remain for us to decide. It would, therefore, be advantageous to
straightaway refer to the decision in Marri Chandra's case.
Marri Chandra was born in Tanali in the State of Andhra Pradesh F
and belonging to Gouda community, popularly known as 'Goudi'. This
community was specified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended till then. His father had
obtained a Scheduled Tribe certificate from the Tehsildar on the basis
whereof he secured employment in the quota reserved for Scheduled
Tribes in a Government of India Undertaking and was posted in Bombay, G
State of Maharashtra. The petitioner was then aged about 9 years. He
persecuted his studies in Bombay and passed the 12th standard examina-
tion held by the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary
Examination Board. Thereafter he sought admission to the respondent-col-
lege claiming benefit of reservation as one belonging to the Scheduled H
'
73.\ SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A Tribe. He was, however, denied admission in that quota though Scheduled
Tribe candidates who had secured lesser marks than him but whose State
of origin was Maharashtra were admitted. The denial of admission was
based on the circular dated February 22, 1985 issued by the Government
of India which has already been referred to by us. Having failed to secure
admission in any medical college in the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe
B candidates, he questioned the denial before this Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution. A Constitution Bench headed by Sabyasachi Mukharji,
CJ., as he then was, examined the question whether one who is recognised
as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin continues to have the benefits
or privilege or rights in the State to which he migrates. In paragraph 6 of
c the Judgment the precise question was formulated as follows :
"The question, therefore, that arises in this case, is whether the
petitioner can claim the benefit of being a Scheduled Tribe in the
State of Maharashtra though he had, as he states, a Scheduled
Caste certificate in the State of Andhra Pradesh?"
D
Jn answering this question the Constitution Bench was called upon to
interpret Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution and determine what the
expression 'in relation to that State' read in conjunction with 'for the
purposes of this Constitution' seeks to convey. After referring to the
E provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 16 and the decision of this Court in
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, [1984] 3 SCC 654 the Constitution Bench
took notice of the fact that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had to
suffer social disadvantages and were denied facilities_ for development and
growth in certain states. To grant equality in those States· where they
F suffered and were denied facilities for development and growth certain
protective preferences, facilities and benefits in the form reservation, etc.,
had to be provided to them to enable them to compete on equal terms with
the more advantageous and developed sections of the c6mmunity. It is not
necessary to dilate on this point as the Constitution itself recognises that
members belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and
G other backward classes have to be given certain incentives, preferences and
benefits to put them on an even keel with others who have hitherto enjoyed
a major share of the facilities for development and growth offered by the
State, so that the former may, in course of time, be able to overcome the
handicap caused on account of denial of opportunities. The interpretation
H that the Court must put on the relevant constitutional provisions in regard
ACTION COMMITTEE SC & ST 1·. U.0.1. [AHMADI. J.] 735
to Schcciuled Castes/Schedule Tribes and other backward classes must be A
aimed at achieving the objective of equality promised to all citizens by the
Preamble of our Constitution. At the same time it must also be realised
that The language of Clause (1) of both the Articles 341 and 342 is quite
plain and unabmiguous. It clearly states that the President may specify the
castes or tribes, as the case may be, in relation each State or Union
B
Territory for the purposes of the Constitution. It must also be realised that
before specifying the castes or tribes under either of the two Articles the
President is, in the case of a State, obliged to consult Governor of that
State. Therefore, when a class is specified by the President, after consulting
the Governor of State A, it is difficult to understand how that specification
made 'in relation to that State' can be treated as specification in relation c
to any other State whose Go'l:ernor the President has not consulted. True
it is that this specification is not only in relation to a given State whose
Governor has been consulted but is 'for the purposes of this Constitution'
meaning thereby the various provisions of the Constitution which deal with
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The Constitution Bench has, after D
referring to the debates in the Constituent Assembly relating to these
Articles, observed that while it is true that a person does not cease to
belong to his caste/tribe by migration he has a better and more socially free
and liberal atmosphere and if sufficiently long time is spent in socially
advanced areas, the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging to·a
specially disadvantageous community do not truncate his growth and the E
natural talents of an individual gets full scope to blossom and flourish.
Realising that these are problems of social adjustment it was observed that
they must be so balanced in the mosaic of the country's integrity that no
section or community should cause detriment or discontentment to the
other community. Therefore, said the Constitution Bench, the Scheduled F
Cases and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country
must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled to
in otder to become equals with others but those who go to other areas
should ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of
that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas. The
Constitution Bench summed up as under : G
"In other words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of
Andhra Pradesh do require necessary protection as balanced
between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra in the Instant case, do H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A require protection in the State of Maharashtra, which will have to
be in balance to other communities. This must be the basic ap-
proach approach to the problem. If one bears this basic in mind,
then the determination of the controversy in the instant case does
not become difficult.
B
We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or
tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent
of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class
in that State which may be totally non-est in another State to which persons
C belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or
.tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the
considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally
different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which
constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. There-
D fore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled
Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the
same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former
would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a
member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State 'for the purposes of this
E Constitution'. This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which
was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is evident from
the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That
is why in answer to a question by Mr. Jaipal Singh, Dr. Ambedkar answered
as under:
F
"He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a
member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area migrates to
another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the
scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim from
the local government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing
G the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is
residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area? It is
a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in
quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would
certainly be able to give some answer to the question in· the form
H of some clau:;~ in his Constitution. But so far as the present
ACTION COMMITTEE SC & STv. U.0.1. [AHMADI, J.] 737
Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside A
the Scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled
to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is
residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see,
it will be practicably impossible to enforce the provisions that apply
to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those which B
are covered by them ........... "
Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the petitioner
was not entitled to admission to the. medical college on the basis that he
belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin.
c
Lastly the Constitution Bench referred to the cleavage in the views
of different High Courts on the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of
the Constitution and the consequential orders passed by the Government
of India and the State Governments. It referred to the two decisions of the
Gujarat High Court as well as the decision of the Karnataka High Court D
which place the interpretation canvassed before us by Mr. Raju
Ramachandran. The other side referred to the decisions of the Orissa High
Court in K Appa Rao v. The Director of Posts and Telegraphs, Orissa, AIR
(1969) Orissa 220, the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High
Court in M.S. Ma/athi v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, AIR (1989) Born.
138 and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in V.B. Singh E
v. State of Punjab, !LR [1976] l P & H 769 which take the contrary view .
canvassed before us by the respondents. All these decisions were con- •
sidered by the Constitution Bench which agreed with the latter view. It
upheld the view expressed in the communication dated February 22, 1985
and negatived the challenge of the petitioner that the said view was ultra F
vires Articles 14, 15, 16 or 21. It, however, observed that .in the facts and
circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner
student's career was involved it directed the authorities to consider whether
the petitioner was a 'Goudi' and if yes, the institution may consider if he
can be allowed to complete his studies in the institution. However, on the
interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitµtion this Court was G
clear in its view that legally speaking he was not entitled to admission in
the Scheduled Tribe quota.
We are in respectful agreement with the above view expressed by the
Constitution Bench in the aforesaid decision. All the points which were H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A canvassed before us by Mr. Raju Rarnchandran were also canvassed by him
in the said matter. They were negatived by the Constitution Bench. Nothing
has been pointed out to persuade us to think that the view taken by the
Constitution Bench requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. In fact we
are in complete agreement with the interpretation placed on the various
B provisions of the Constitution, in particular Articles 341 and 342 thereof,
in the said judgment. We, therefore, see no merit in this writ petition and
dismiss the same. However, we make no order to costs.
A.G. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Scheduled Castes"Sign in to search