SC Upholds Pan India Reservation Policy in Delhi, But States Can't Unilaterally Extend Reservation To SC/ST Members Of Other States [Read Judgment]

“If in the opinion of a State it is necessary to extend the benefit of reservation to a class/category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the Lists for that particular State, constitutional discipline would require the State to make its views in the matter prevail with the central authority so as to enable an appropriate parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that particular State. Unilateral action by States on the touchstone of Article 16(4) of the Constitution could be a possible trigger point of constitutional anarchy and therefore must be held to be impermissible under the Constitution.”The constitution bench of the Supreme Court has held that Pan India Reservation Rule in force in National Capital Territory of Delhi is in accord with the constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union Territories.As regard states, the bench in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board, observed that, to extend the benefit of reservation to a class/category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the lists for that particular state, the state shall make its views in the matter prevail with the central authority so as to enable an appropriate parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that particular state. Unilateral action by States on the touchstone of Article 16(4) of the Constitution could be a possible trigger point of constitutional anarchy and therefore must be held to be impermissible under the Constitution, the bench added.Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who headed the five-judge bench, authored the judgment for the majority (also comprising of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer).Justice R Banumathi, though agreed with the majority that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one state cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other state to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education, disagreed with the exception given to National Capital Territory of Delhi.The Issue“Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?” Takes Note Of Constitution Bench Judgment in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao The bench took note of two earlier constitution bench judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth GS Medical College and others and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India that had held that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one state cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other state to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education.Did Not Go Into Correctness of View Expressed In S Pushpa In S Pushpa and others vs. Sivachanmugavelu, it was observed that the principle enunciated in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao cannot have application here as UT of Pondicherry is not a state. It also held that UT of Pondicherry having adopted a policy of the Central Government whereunder all Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their state are eligible for posts which are reserved for SC/ST candidates, no legal infirmity can be ascribed to such a policy and the same cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of law. The constitution bench, however, did not go into the correctness of the view expressed by the three-judge bench in S Pushpa.Unilateral Action By States In Adopting Pan India Reservation Policy Could Trigger Constitutional AnarchyThe bench answered the reference as follows: “It is an unquestionable principle of interpretation that interrelated statutory as well as constitutional provisions have to be harmoniously construed and understood so as to avoid making any provision nugatory and redundant. If the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential Orders under Article 341/342 is subject to alteration only by laws made by Parliament, operation of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes beyond the classes or categories enumerated under the Presidential Order for a particular State/Union Territory by exercise of the enabling power vested by Article 16(4) would have the obvious effect of circumventing the specific constitutional provisions in Articles 341/342. In this regard, it must also be noted that the power under Article 16(4) is not only capable of being exercised by a legislative provision/enactment but also by an Executive Order issued 44 under Article 166 of the Constitution. It will, therefore, be in consonance with the constitutional scheme to understand the enabling provision under Article 16(4) to be available to provide reservation only to the classes or categories of...

SC Upholds Pan India Reservation Policy in Delhi, But States Can't Unilaterally Extend Reservation To SC/ST Members Of Other States [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

Tags