'State Can't Alter Schedule Caste List Published Under Art. 341', Supreme Court Strikes Down Bihar Govt Resolution To Merge EBC Community In SC List

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 15) struck down the resolution issued by the Bihar Government in 2015 which had merged one community in the Backward Castes list with another community in the Scheduled Caste list.

The Court said that the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution.

“The State may be justified in deleting “Tanti-Tantwa” from the Extremely Backward Classes list on the recommendation of the State Backward Commission, but beyond that to merge “Tanti-Tantwa” with 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr' under Entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes was nothing short of mala fide exercise for whatever good, bad or indifferent reasons, the State may have thought at that moment. Whether synonymous or not, any inclusion or exclusion of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within the castes, races or tribes has to be, by law made by the Parliament, and not by any other mode or manner.”, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra said.

In 2015, the Bihar Government issued a notification merging one community in the Extremely Backward Castes list i.e., “Tanti-Tantwa” with another community in the Scheduled Caste list i.e., 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr' for extending the benefit of Schedule Caste List to the Tanti-Tantwa community.

This notification was challenged in the High Court. However, the High Court upheld the notification. Challenging the High Court's judgment, certain organizations appealed to the Supreme Court

Agreeing with the Appellant's contention that the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to add a caste or sub-caste to any entry in the Scheduled Castes list notified under the Presidential Order under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, the Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed that any amendment, addition, deletion or modification to the list published under the Presidential Order can be made only by law enacted by Parliament and not otherwise.

“Having considered the submissions advanced, we have no hesitation in holding that the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 was patently illegal, erroneous as the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution. The submission of the respondent-State that Resolution dated 01.07.2015 was only clarificatory is not worth considering for a moment and deserves outright rejection. Whether or not it was synonymous or integral part of the Entry-20 of the lists of Schedule Castes, it could not have been added without any law being made by the Parliament.”, the court said.

Depriving the benefits granted to the members of the Scheduled Castes is a serious issue

The Court lamented the approach of the Bihar Government to extend the benefit of the scheduled caste lists to the particular community of another Caste List and said that the State cannot take away the benefit granted to the Schedule Castes by extending the benefit to another community of different Castes.

“In the present case, the action of the State is found to be mala fide and de hors the constitutional provisions. The State cannot be pardoned for the mischief done by it. Depriving the members of the Scheduled Castes covered by the lists under Article 341 of the Constitution is a serious issue. Any person not deserving and not covered by such list if extended such benefit for deliberate and mischievous reasons by the State, cannot take away the benefit of the members of the Scheduled Castes. Such appointments would under law on the findings recorded would be liable to be set aside.”, the court said.

State Has No Authority To Accept Recommendation Of Commission for Extremely Backward Classes To Include EBC Community in Schedule Caste Lists

“The submission that the recommendation of the Commission for Extremely Backward Classes was binding on the State, is not a question to be determined here, inasmuch as, even if we accept the submission, such recommendation could relate only to the Extremely Backward Classes. Whether or not to include or exclude any caste in the list of Extremely Backward Class would be within the domain of the Commission. The Commission would have no jurisdiction to make recommendation with respect to any caste being included in the Scheduled Castes lists and, even if it makes such a recommendation, right or wrong, the State has no authority to proceed to implement the same when it was fully aware that the Constitution does not permit it to do so. The Provisions of Article 341 sub Clause 1 and sub-Clause 2 are very clear and discrete. There is no ambiguity or vagueness otherwise requiring any interpretation other than what is mentioned therein. The State of Bihar has tried to read something in order to suit its own ends for whatever reason, we are not commenting on the same.”, the Court said.

However, the Court refrained from invalidating the appointments of the members of "Tanti- Tantwa” community in the SC quota from 2015. Instead, the Court directed :

"We are of the view that all such posts of the Scheduled Castes reserved quota which have been extended to the members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community appointed subsequent to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 be returned to the Scheduled Castes Quota and all such members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community, who have been extended such benefit may be accommodated under their original category of Extremely Backward Classes, for which the State may take appropriate measures."

Counsels For Appellant(s) Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv. Mr. K.b. Pradeep, Adv. Mr. Jaspreet Aulakh, Adv. Ms. Anoushka Singh, Adv. Ms. Dashampreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, AOR Ms. Twinkle Gupta, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Suyash Vyas, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Animesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aprajita, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amrendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Bachan Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kumar, Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Mr. Rao Vishwaja, Adv. Mr. Harshed Sundar, Adv. Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Adv. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr.Adv. (NP) Ms. Lubna Naaz, AOR Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kocchhar,Adv. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mrs. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mrs. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mrs. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Mrs. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. B S Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Mr. Shyamal Kumar, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sukhdeep Kaur, Adv. Mr. Bitu Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Mr. Satya Veer Singh, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Mrs. Meetu Goswami, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Goswami, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Ojha, Adv. Ms. Raj Bala, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, AOR Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Ms. Priya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv. Mr. C. P. Singh, Adv.

Case Details: DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 472

Click here to read/download the Judgment