Schedule Tribe Member Migrating To Another State/UT Can't Claim ST Status If Tribe Isn't Notified As ST In That State/UT : Supreme Court
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that a person with the status of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in one State cannot claim the same benefit in another State or Union Territory where he/ she has eventually migrated, where the tribe is not notified as ST. Further, Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih also held that a public notification by the President, as given under...
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that a person with the status of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in one State cannot claim the same benefit in another State or Union Territory where he/ she has eventually migrated, where the tribe is not notified as ST. Further, Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih also held that a public notification by the President, as given under Article 342 (Scheduled Tribes) of the Indian Constitution, is necessary for any tribal committee to be ST. It may be noted that Article 342 stipulates that the President, upon consultation with the Governor, shall specify any Tribal Community as ST.
The instant matter was related to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, where the President notified no ST community. In view of this, the Division Bench held:
“.....we hold that insofar as a person claiming benefit having regard to his status as a Scheduled Tribe in a State, when he migrates to a Union Territory where a Presidential Order has not been issued at all insofar Scheduled Tribe is concerned, or even if such a Notification is issued, such an identical Scheduled Tribe does not find a place in such a Notification, the person cannot claim his status on the basis of his being noted as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin.”
“The Presidential notification of a tribe or tribal community as a Scheduled Tribe by the President of India under Article 342 is a sine qua non for extending any benefits to the said community in any State or U.T.”
To elaborate, the appellant/Chandigarh Housing Board had called for applications for allotment houses exclusively for SCs and STs. One of the conditions required for the applicants was that they should be a domicile of the Union Territory of Chandigarh or have been a resident for at least three years on the application's submission date. One of the applicants was Tarsem Lal/ the respondent. He belonged to ST, as recognized in his state of origin, i.e., Rajasthan. Given that he had been permanently residing in Chandigarh for twenty years, he also applied for the allotment. However, he was not allotted the house. Being aggrieved by this, he approached the Civil Court, which ruled in his favor. The High Court also dismissed the appeal of the Housing board. Thus, the matter was reached before the Supreme Court, which was against this background.
The Top Court, while deciding this appeal, cited some of the landmark judgments in this regard. This included Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 130. Therein, it was observed that when a person migrates to a State that does not have any special right for him/ her, it does not impinge on the right to equality. The relevant portion reads as follows:
“Constitutional right, e.g., it has been argued that right to migration or right to move from one part to another is a right given to all to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and to non-scheduled castes or tribes. But when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that right is not given in the migrated State it does not interfere with his constitutional right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his trade, business or profession.”
Further, a decision of the Constitution Bench in Action Committee vs. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 244 agreed with the aforementioned reasoning. The Court opined, "Given the variance of social context, the list of such castes, tribes or classes would be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate.”
Reference was also made to the judgment in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board (2018) which held merely because in the migrant state the same caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be recognized as Scheduled Caste of the migrant state.
In view of this, the Court observed that the advertisement in the present case was issued without strict compliance with Article 342. Thus, the same was held to be erroneously issued.
“In view of the aforesaid, we find that the appellant had erroneously issued the advertisement inviting applications for allotment of houses from both Scheduled Castes as well as Scheduled Tribes persons because no such reservation for Scheduled Tribes could have been made without strict compliance with Article 342.”
The Court also opined that the Notification, calling for applications from both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, did not confer any benefit when there is no Presidential Order under Article 342.
“The said basic foundational fact goes against the respondent herein and the invitation given by the appellant/Housing Board to Scheduled Tribes was in fact contrary to the said basic tenets as well as the prevalent law and by that reason, the respondent herein cannot also seek any estoppel as against the appellant herein.,” the Court added.
Thus, on this sole ground, the Court had set aside the impugned judgment.
Case Title: CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. TARSEM LAL
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 139