Reservation in States/ Union Territories for migrant Scheduled Caste /Tribe persons: What the Supreme Court held

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court today held that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/ Tribe (SC/ST) in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education..The expressions “in relation to that State or Union Territory” and “for the purpose of this Constitution” used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union..The judgment was delivered by a Constitution Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, NV Ramana, R Banumathi, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and S Abdul Nazeer..Justice R Banumathi dissented with respect to certain aspects from the majority judgment..Background.The issue arose before the Court during the hearing of a different case – State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others..During the course of the hearing in the said case, Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another v. Union of India and another..In both these cases, the Supreme Court had held a migrant SC/ST person will not be entitled to the benefits of reservation in a State to which he/she has migrated..However, a two-judge Bench in S Pushpa and others v. Sivachanmugavelu had taken a different view holding that in the matter of providing reservation, it was open to the Pondicherry Government to apply or adopt a policy to give the benefit of reservation to migrant Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes..The Court in Sandeep Kumar’s case, therefore, framed the following question:.“A very important question of law as to the interpretation of Articles 16(4), 341 and 342 arises for consideration in this appeal. Whether the Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution has any bearing on the State’s action in making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State? The extent and nature of interplay and interaction among Articles 16(4), 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution is required to be resolved.”.The Court, however, disposed of that case without answering the above question. Hence, they came to be reconsidered in the current batch of appeals..Issue.The question in the current batch of appeals was whether a policy in furtherance of the enabling provision contained in Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India could extend to giving of benefits beyond the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of a State/Union Territory enumerated in the Presidential Orders framed/issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.The issue had arisen in a bunch of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi against the order/orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal..The Tribunal following Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action Committee, in preference to the view expressed in S Pushpa, held that insofar as the Union Territory of Delhi is concerned, a migrant Scheduled Caste person would not be entitled to the benefits conferred on members of the Scheduled Castes enumerated in the list for the Union Territory of Delhi by the Presidential Order..The Delhi High Court sitting in a Full Bench found the decision in S Pushpa to be more directly relatable to the issue at hand i.e. being one of the services in the Union Territory and, therefore, felt to be bound by the decision of the three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S Pushpa..A similar appeal also came to be filed from Calcutta High Court..The Articles.The issue involves the interplay of three Articles – Article 341(1), 342(1) and 16(4)..Article 341(1) of the Constitution empowers the President with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor to specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory..Article 342(1) confers similar powers on the President in relation to Scheduled Tribes..It is further provided that except as provided i.e. by Parliament by law(s) made, the notification issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) shall not be varied by any subsequent notification..Article 16(4) is an enabling provision. It enables the State to provide to backward classes including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes reservation in appointments to public services..Judgment.The Court after examining the Articles and the judgments mentioned above held that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education..The expressions “in relation to that State or Union Territory” and “for the purpose of this Constitution” used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time to time..“A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’ cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’.” .The Court also made it clear that Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 in regard to Scheduled Castes and under Article 342 in regard to Scheduled Tribes cannot be varied or altered by any authority including the Court. It is the Parliament alone which has been vested with the power to do so, that too, by laws made. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes thus specified in relation to a State or a Union Territory does not carry the same status in another State or Union Territory, it held..Thus, any expansion/deletion of the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes by any authority except Parliament would be against the constitutional mandate under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India..On Article 16(4), the Court held that the same is an enabling provision..“It enables the State to provide to backward classes including Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes reservation in appointments to public services. Such reservation is to be provided on the basis of quantifiable data indicating the adequacy or inadequacy, as may be, of the representation of such classes in Government service.”.On the interplay of Articles 341, 342 and 16(4).It is an unquestionable principle of interpretation that interrelated statutory or Constitutional provisions, have to be harmoniously construed and understood so as to avoid making any provision nugatory and redundant, the Court opined..If the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential Orders under Article 341/342 is subject to alteration only by laws made by Parliament, operation of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes beyond the classes or categories enumerated under the Presidential Order for a particular State/Union Territory by exercise of the enabling power vested by Article 16(4) would have the obvious effect of circumventing the specific constitutional provisions in Articles 341/342..It will, therefore, be in consonance with the Constitutional scheme to understand the enabling provision under Article 16(4) to be available to provide reservation only to the classes or categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes enumerated in the Presidential orders for a particular State/Union Territory within the geographical area of that State and not beyond..If in the opinion of a State it is necessary to extend the benefit of reservation to a class/category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the Lists for that particular State, constitutional discipline would require the State to make its views in the matter prevail with the central authority so as to enable an appropriate parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that particular State..Unilateral action by States on the touchstone of Article 16(4) of the Constitution could be a possible trigger point of constitutional anarchy and therefore must be held to be impermissible under the Constitution, the Court ruled..Nature of Service.The Court, however, proceeded to apply the above principles to the instant case based on the nature of the services in respect of which reservation was in dispute..Adverting to “Commentary on the Constitution of India” by DD Basu, the Court set out the different kind of services..It held that the broad picture that emanated from the same was that insofar as the services in connection with the affairs of the Union is concerned (Central Services), wherever the establishment may be located i.e. in the National Capital Territory of Delhi or in a State or within the geographical areas of Union Territory, recruitment to all positions is on an All India basis and reservation provided for is again a pan India reservation..In the instant case, the subordinate services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi are clearly Central Civil Services. The Affidavit of the Union also points out this feature, the Court said..It, therefore, held that insofar as the National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned the pan India Reservation Rule in force is in accord with the Constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union Territories..Justice Banumathi agreed with the exposition of law provided in the majority judgment but dissented with respect to its application to the instant case..Read the judgment below.