The Supreme Court Invalidates Bihar Government Resolution to Include EBC Community in SC List, Asserts Only the Center Can Modify Schedule Caste List Under Article 341

Case title:

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar v. The State Of Bihar & Ors. With Ashish Rajak V. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date of Order:

July 15th, 2024

Bench:

Vikram Nath, J.

Parties:

Petitioner

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar With Ashish Rajak

Versus

The State Of Bihar & Ors.

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court Invalidates Bihar Government Resolution to Include EBC Community in SC List, Asserts Only the Center Can Modify Schedule Caste List Under Article 341. The Supreme Court concluded that only Parliament can change the SC list under Article 341, making Bihar's 2015 resolution to add "Tanti-Tantwa" unconstitutional. 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Article 366(24) of the Constitution: defines "Scheduled Castes." It says that "Scheduled Castes" include the castes, races, or tribes, or parts or groups of them, that are considered as such under Article 341 of the Constitution.
• Article 341 of the Constitution: The President has the authority to define and declare which castes, races, or tribes (or sections of them) would be recognized Scheduled Castes in any State or Union Territory. If it is a state, the President must first consult with its governor. Parliament has the authority to add or remove any caste, race, or tribe (or portions or groups thereof) from the list of Scheduled Castes listed in the President's notification. However, once the President issues a notification, it cannot be modified by any subsequent notification until Parliament passes legislation to do so.
• Article 338-B of the Constitution, states that the State Government may establish a Commission for Backward Classes.
• The Bihar State Legislature passed the Bihar State Commission for Backward Classes Act in 1993 to set up a State Commission for Backward Classes. This Act includes:
  o    Section 9, which outlines the Commission's duties.
  o    Section 10, which specifies the Commission's powers.
  o    Section 11, which mandates the State Government to update the list of Backward Classes every ten years, consulting the Commission during the process.
• The Bihar State Legislature also passed the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Act in 1991, which was put into effect in 1992. This Act lists the Extremely Backward Classes, and includes "Tanti-Tantwa" as one of the castes in this category at Serial No. 33.

OVERVIEW:

• On July 1, 2015, Bihar's State Government removed the "Tanti-Tantwa" caste from the Extremely Backward Classes list.
• Merged "Tanti-Tantwa" with 'Pan/Sawasi' caste (Entry No. 20) on Bihar's Scheduled Castes list.
• The Patna High Court received writ petitions and a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the resolution.
• On April 3, 2017, the court dismissed all petitions and upheld the state government's determination.
• In 2011, the Bihar government requested to the Central Government that "Tanti-Tantwa" be added to the Scheduled Castes list as a synonym for 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr'.
• However, this was not recognized due to the Registrar General of India's comments in January 2013.
• Despite the Central Government's rejection and notices, the Bihar government issued Scheduled Caste certificates to members of the "Tanti-Tantwa" community according to a 2015 resolution.
• The appellants subsequently filed appeals at the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the state government has the authority to modify the Scheduled Castes list, as such changes can only be made by an Act of Parliament under Article 341 of the Constitution

ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANTS

• The appellant argued that Articles 366(24) and 341 of the Constitution prohibit the state government from include "Tanti-Tantwa" in the Scheduled Castes list notified under Article 341.
• Changes to Scheduled Caste lists require a bill passed by Parliament.The state was aware of its lack of authority, as demonstrable by its 2011 request to the Central Government for the inclusion of "Tanti-Tantwa" in the Scheduled Castes list.
• The state's 2015 notification was a mala fide effort to illegally extend benefits to the "Tanti-Tantwa" caste after the Central Government rejected the request.
• The 2015 notification cannot be partially upheld (removing "Tanti-Tantwa" from Extremely Backward Classes) as well as partially quashed (combining with Scheduled Castes) as it would result in the caste losing quota benefits.
• The unauthorized insertion of "Tanti-Tantwa" in the Scheduled Castes list denied real Scheduled Caste members their due advantages. 

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT 

• The 2015 resolution clarified rather than amended the Scheduled Castes list.
• Historical, sociological, and cultural elements suggest that "Tanti-Tantwa" refers to 'Pan, Sawasi'.
• The State Commission for Extremely Backward Classes issued a binding recommendation, which the state implemented.
• Judicial review should be limited, except for exceptional cases of perversity.In March 2022, the National Commission for Backward Classes suggested that "Tanti-Tantwa" be replaced by 'Pan, Sawasi'.
• If the court overturns the 2015 resolution, existing benefits for "Tanti-Tantwa" members should be safeguarded based on equity and conscience.Because the petition is still pending before the Union of India based on recent recommendations, the court should order the Central Government to make a judgment within a specific timeline.

COURT ANALYSIS

1. The court decided that the Resolution dated July 1, 2015 was "patently illegal" and "erroneous". The State Government lacks the ability, power, and capacity to amend the Scheduled Castes list issued under Article 341 of the Constitution.
2. The court dismissed the state's claim that the resolution was merely clarifying, adding it was "not worth considering for a moment".
3. The court highlighted that any changes to the Scheduled Castes list must be made through an Act of Parliament.
4. The court recognized the state's move as a "mala fide exercise," noting that they were aware of their lack of authority and had previously sought consent from the Central.
5. The court stated that the State Backward Commission did not have the authority to suggest inclusions in the Scheduled Castes list, while their recommendations may be binding for Extremely Backward Classes.
6. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court made a serious error in maintaining the notification without properly referencing Article 341 of the Constitution
7. The court did not prosecute individual beneficiaries of the "Tanti-Tantwa" community, despite the state's wrongful activities. However, court directed that "Tanti-Tantwa" people complete Scheduled Caste quota posts and return to the Scheduled Castes category.
8. The court ordered the state to accommodate the affected "Tanti-Tantwa" members within their original Extremely Backward Classes classification.
9. The court emphasized that Article 341's contents are plain and require no interpretation beyond their original meaning.

The Case Laws:

• In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 4, According to Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the President has the authority to publish notifications identifying Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a state or union territory (page 15 SCC).
• Articles 341 and 342 have similar wording, therefore what is true for one applies to the other.
  o    These articles attempt to provide further protection to Scheduled Castes and Tribes, who have historically faced social and educational disadvantages.
  "Scheduled Castes" and "Scheduled Tribes" employ the terms "castes" and "tribes" as defined in Articles 366(24) and 366(25), respectively.
• E.V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 5 November, 2004: Presidential Notification safeguards socially and educationally backward Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Article 341 provides meaning to the Presidential Notification that defines whom to consider for this safeguard, which comes with a plethora of benefits attached to it, including job reservations in underrepresented fields. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes fall under the backward class as per Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which lays the basic foundation of reservations for them.
  ○    Further, reservations make an attempt to protect the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, who have traditionally been socially and educationally backward.
  ○    This protection and reservation is awarded to them as homogeneous units. Any further classification or regrouping by State Legislatures would encroach upon Presidential Notification under Article 341, and is not permitted by the Constitution.
  ○    In an attempt to include the uniform group mentioned in the Presidential Notification for the purposes of reservation, the State's legislation attempts to tinker with. The result would be reverse discrimination, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring equality before law. Justice should be fair and not merely delivered to one at the cost of injustice to some other; that would be another kind of injustice.
• It was submitted in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College, 1990, Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra vs. Union of India, 1994 and Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board, 2018 that:
  ○     Any Presidential Order has yet not been issued for recognition of Scheduled Tribes in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
  ○    Recognition of Scheduled Tribes in a Union Territory or State can be made only by a Presidential Order under Article 342 of the Indian Constitution.
  ○    No such Presidential Order has been issued for the Scheduled Tribes in Chandigarh.
  ○    There is no list of recognised Scheduled Tribes in Chandigarh. Therefore, the requirement of inviting applications for allotment of flats was improper.
• This is what the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court explained through Chief Justice Gajendragadkar in Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh, (1965) where he explained the meaning of Article 341(1):
  ○    It provides extra protection to Scheduled Castes because they are economically as well as educationally backward.
  ○    The President may decide which caste, race or tribe is backward and so is a Scheduled Caste.
  ○    The President may have these categories in respect of different parts of the State, depending upon the backwardness, social and educational, of the people living in such parts.
  ○    Before issuing a notice under Article 341(1), an inquiry is undertaken so as to determine what groups need to be given social justice. Notifications can be area-specific so that there are different levels of backwardness within the State.

Chandigarh Housing Board  Tarse V. M Lal

• Article 342 also applies to Article 341. Both provisions are intended to afford special protection to Scheduled Castes and Tribes who have suffered from the handicap of long-standing social and educational backwardness.
• There is no mention of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in one state migrating to a Union Territory. A person who is a Scheduled Tribe in one state does not become a Scheduled Tribe in the Union Territory to which he migrates. They cannot avail of their status in the previous state any longer.
• Under Article 342, if no Presidential Order has been issued for a Scheduled Tribe in a Union Territory, or the tribe is not mentioned in the Notification in the Union Territory, then the same cannot be claimed as Scheduled Tribe on the basis of recognition in the native state.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. It emphasizes that only the Central Government, through an Act of Parliament, can alter the Scheduled Castes list under Article 341 of the Constitution. The Bihar government resolution in 2015, adding the "Tanti-Tantwa" caste to the SC list, was held unconstitutional. Not only should the SC and ST lists be uniform, but any changes therein should be affected by a Presidential notification and action of Parliament. While referring to the various key decisions, the Court laid emphasis on a uniform legal framework and condemned the mala fide act of the State of Bihar, indicating the possible disparities. It protected the persons who benefited by the now-invalid resolution and placed them in their original category. It further reiterated that the point SC/ST status does not follow by migration unless mentioned, and the central government should expedite judgments for pending recommendations for inclusion in the Scheduled Castes list. The case once again brings out the importance of following constitutional processes if the integrity of affirmative action measures has to be protected.