Supreme Court Invalidates Bihar’s Notification Merging Tanti Caste into Scheduled Castes List: “Only Parliament Has the Authority to Alter Scheduled Castes Under Article 341”

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, which had allowed the respondent’s claim for benefits under the Scheduled Castes (SC) category based on a State Government notification. The Court held that the inclusion or exclusion of any caste in the SC list is solely the prerogative of Parliament under Article 341 of the Constitution, and the State Government had no authority to issue such a notification. It restored the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had earlier dismissed the respondent’s claim.

Facts:

1. The respondent was appointed as a Postal Assistant in 1997 under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, based on his Tanti caste certificate.
2. In 2015, the Bihar State Government issued a Gazette Notification removing the Tanti caste from the list of OBCs and merging it with Pan/Swasi caste in the SC list, allowing members of the Tanti caste to claim SC benefits.
3. Based on this notification, the respondent obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate from the District Magistrate and requested that his service record be updated to reflect his new SC category status.
4. The respondent applied for promotion as an SC candidate under a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held in 2016 and was declared successful.
5. However, the Department of Posts, after consulting the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, refused to approve his promotion, stating that the respondent was not entitled to SC benefits. His name was deleted from the list of successful candidates.
6. Aggrieved by this decision, the respondent approached the CAT, which dismissed his application. The High Court subsequently allowed his writ petition, quashing the CAT’s order and the Department’s rejection of his claim.

Issues:

1. Whether the State Government had the constitutional authority to merge the Tanti caste with the SC list via a notification.
2. Whether the respondent could claim SC benefits based on a certificate issued under the invalid notification.
3. Whether the respondent was entitled to protection under equity principles for the promotional post he occupied.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The Union of India argued that:
   • The State Government’s notification merging Tanti caste with the SC list was unconstitutional, as Article 341 grants Parliament the exclusive authority to make such changes.
   • The respondent could not claim SC benefits as the notification was void and contrary to constitutional provisions.
2. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, where the Court had declared the same notification unconstitutional.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The respondent contended that:
   • He obtained a valid SC certificate from a competent authority based on the State Government’s notification, and the certificate was neither challenged nor canceled.
   • He should be allowed to retain the benefits of his SC categorization, including his promotion.
2. The respondent also invoked equity principles, seeking protection similar to that granted in earlier cases like K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Article 341 of the Constitution:
   • The Court emphasized that the inclusion or exclusion of castes in the SC list must be done by Parliament through legislation.
   • The State Government’s action to merge the Tanti caste into the SC list was unconstitutional, as it violated the clear mandate of Article 341.
   • The notification was therefore declared illegal, void, and without jurisdiction.
2. Invalidity of the State Notification:
   • The State’s justification that the notification was merely “clarificatory” was rejected. The Court noted that even if a caste is synonymous with an SC caste, its inclusion in the SC list can only be done by Parliament.
3. Distinction Between Past Cases:
   • In Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar, the Court had invalidated the same notification but protected individuals already holding posts under SC benefits for a significant period.
   • In K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank, similar protection was granted to individuals whose caste certificates were retrospectively invalidated.
   • However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the respondent’s promotion was recent and short-lived, and no equities favored him.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar:
   • The Court declared that the State Government lacked the authority to alter the SC list and termed the notification merging the Tanti caste into the SC list as unconstitutional.
   • Protection was granted to individuals who had already benefited from the notification due to the long duration of their appointments.
2. K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank:
   • The Court protected individuals whose caste benefits were invalidated retrospectively, considering their long-standing appointments and reliance on government actions.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Milind:
   • Affirmed the principle that only Parliament can alter the SC list.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The Court reaffirmed the constitutional framework under Article 341, which prohibits States from altering the SC list.
2. The State Government’s notification was a mala fide exercise that violated the constitutional rights of genuine SC members by diluting the SC list.
3. The Court declined to extend equity jurisdiction to the respondent, noting that:
   • The benefit of his illegal categorization as an SC candidate was for less than a year.
   • Unlike in earlier cases, his appointment did not involve long-standing service or reliance over several years.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court:

1. Set aside the High Court’s judgment, which had quashed the CAT’s order and upheld the respondent’s claim.
2. Restored the CAT’s dismissal of the respondent’s application, holding that he was not entitled to SC benefits under an illegal notification.
3. Reiterated the constitutional requirement for Parliament to approve any changes to the SC list.

Implications:

1. The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that the SC list cannot be altered by State Governments.
2. It prevents the dilution of benefits meant for genuine SC members, ensuring that inclusion or exclusion follows the prescribed parliamentary process.
3. It draws a clear line on the application of equity principles, limiting their use to cases involving significant reliance or long-standing service.
4. This decision serves as a precedent to curtail unauthorized actions by States attempting to modify caste lists outside their jurisdiction.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Overturns Conviction Under POCSO Act and IPC, Citing Procedural Lapses, Contradictory Testimonies, and Defective Examination Under Section 313 CrPC