Tuesday, Oct 20, 2020 | Last Update : 10:40 PM IST

195th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra1443409114960338084 Andhra Pradesh7192566588755981 Karnataka6406615157829286 Tamil Nadu6088555529389653 Uttar Pradesh4031013468595864 Delhi2827522506135401 West Bengal2603242287555017 Odisha222734190080912 Kerala204242131048772 Telangana1992761701091163 Bihar178882164537888 Assam169985139977655 Gujarat1332191132403417 Rajasthan1288591077181441 Haryana1237821059901307 Madhya Pradesh117588932382207 Punjab107096840253134 Chhatisgarh9856566860777 Jharkhand7770964515661 Jammu and Kashmir69832495571105 Uttarakhand4533233642555 Goa3107125071386 Puducherry2548919781494 Tripura2412717464262 Himachal Pradesh136799526152 Chandigarh112128677145 Manipur9791760263 Arunachal Pradesh8649623014 Nagaland5768469311 Meghalaya5158334343 Sikkim2707199431 Mizoram178612880
  India   All India  31 Aug 2018  Migrants among SC/ST to lose quotas: Supreme Court

Migrants among SC/ST to lose quotas: Supreme Court

Published : Aug 31, 2018, 1:59 am IST
Updated : Aug 31, 2018, 6:34 am IST

In case of Scheduled Tribes, the President has been similarly empowered under Article 342(1) of the Constitution.

Supreme Court of India (Photo: Asian Age)
 Supreme Court of India (Photo: Asian Age)

New Delhi: In a significant and landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held on Thursday that a person who is recognised as a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in his/her original state will be entitled to all the benefits of reservation under the Constitution only in that state and is not entitled to the benefits of reservation in another state or Union territory to which he/she may migrate.

By way of illustration, the court said if a person  listed as an SC/ST in Andhra Pradesh who migrated to Maharashtra is to be given the benefit of reservation, it will amount to depriving an SC/ST person of Maharashtra by reducing the reservation earmarked for him.


Giving this ruling, a five-judge Constitution Bench that comprised Justices Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, M.M. Shantanagouder and Abdul Nazeer, by a majority of 4:1, however, 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 states/Union territories. Justice Banumathi, in a separate judgment, differed with the majority ruling to a limited extent by holding that the benefit of quota would not be available to a migrated SC even in Delhi. The Constitution Bench was answering a reference on whether a person belonging to a SC in a particular state would be entitled or not to the benefits or concessions allowed to SC candidates in the matter of employment, in any other state? In his main judgment, Justice Gogoi said 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 thereof, by public notification, to specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that state or Union territory. In case of Scheduled Tribes, the President has been similarly empowered under Article 342(1) of the Constitution.


Justice Gogoi said a person belonging to a SC in one state couldn’t be deemed to be a SC person in relation to any other state to which he/she migrates for the purpose of employment or education.

If a member of SC/ST gets the benefit of that status throughout the territory of India, the expression “in relation to that state” would become nugatory.

Further, Justice Gogoi said if the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a particular state are to be made available in all states and if such benefits are to be carried from State  “A” to State “B” on migration, the mandate of Article 341/342 would then get compromised.


Tags: supreme court, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, sc/st