Supreme Court Clarifies Scheduled Tribe Status for Chandigarh Housing Allotment: Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Tarsem Lal (2024) INSC 119 (07 February 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 07 February 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 119

Judges: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih

Can a person who is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in one state claim the same status and benefits in a Union Territory, especially when that Union Territory has no specific Presidential Order recognizing any Scheduled Tribe? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a civil appeal concerning housing allotment in Chandigarh. The court clarified that a person’s Scheduled Tribe status is specific to the state or union territory where it is recognized by a Presidential Order and cannot be automatically transferred to another state or union territory. This judgment has significant implications for reservation policies and the rights of individuals migrating between states and union territories.

Case Background

In 1983, the Chandigarh Housing Board (the appellant) advertised for housing applications, reserving 12.5% of houses for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The advertisement stated that applicants should be domiciled in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or have resided there for at least three years. The draw of lots was held on 09.09.1983, and a list of successful applicants was published on 12.09.1983, allotting thirty houses.

Due to confusion regarding separate reservations for Scheduled Tribes, four houses were kept in abeyance. The Chandigarh Administration clarified on 21.09.1983 that even if the Scheduled Tribe population was less than 5%, a minimum 5% reservation could be made. The respondent, who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan and had been residing in Chandigarh for twenty years, was not allotted a house and filed a civil suit.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, stating that the appellant was obliged to reserve a minimum of 5% of dwelling units for Scheduled Tribes based on the clarification letter dated 21.09.1983. The trial court also noted that Article 342 of the Constitution had not been made applicable to the U.T. of Chandigarh, but this did not mean that Scheduled Tribes could not get any benefit from the Chandigarh Administration. The court held that the advertisement did not stipulate that only members of the Scheduled Tribes of Chandigarh could apply.

The First Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, affirming the trial court’s decision. The High Court also dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, relying on the Chandigarh Administration’s letter of clarification dated 21.09.1983 and the Ministry of Home Affairs’ letter dated 21.05.1985. The High Court concluded that these letters left no doubt that the Chandigarh Administration instructed the Chandigarh Housing Board to keep the reservation for allotment of dwelling units. The High Court also held that the respondent, being a Scheduled Tribe certificate holder from Rajasthan, was not debarred. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Chandigarh Housing Board appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, which define Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively:

“341. Scheduled Castes.- (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or group within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.”

“342. Scheduled Tribes. – (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.”

The court emphasized that a public notification by the President of India is essential for any tribe or tribal community to be deemed a Scheduled Tribe in relation to a specific State or Union Territory. The Parliament, through the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, created the Union Territory of Chandigarh and made provision for amendment of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes Orders. Section 27(2) of the said Act provided for amendment of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) (Union Territories) Order, 1951, to include, with respect to Chandigarh, 36 castes enlisted in Part V of the Ninth Schedule of the said Act. A similar provision is also made for amendment of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Union Territories) Order, 1951, as directed in the Eleventh Schedule but the said Schedule does not include any part or entry with respect the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there is no Presidential Order issued for Scheduled Tribes in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
• They contended that only a Presidential Order under Article 342 of the Constitution can recognize Scheduled Tribes in a Union Territory or State.
• The appellant stated that the respondent, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, cannot claim the same status in Chandigarh, relying on the principle that caste status is specific to the state or union territory of a person’s origin.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court misinterpreted letters dated 21.09.1983 and 21.05.1985 by ignoring that caste status is limited to the State or Union Territory of a person’s origin.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the High Court’s judgments were just and proper.
• He contended that even without a Presidential Order for Scheduled Tribes in Chandigarh, he could derive benefits as a migrant based on his status in Rajasthan, relying on a letter dated 25.11.1985 from the Ministry of Welfare.
• The respondent submitted that the letter from the Ministry of Welfare indicated that a migrant could derive benefits based on their status in the state of origin.
• The respondent argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bir Singh did not express any view with regard to Union Territories other than the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
• The respondent contended that there is no judgment of the Supreme Court that states that a person migrating from a State where they are recognized as a Scheduled Tribe to an Union Territory where there is no Presidential Order recognizing any Scheduled Tribe, cannot be given benefit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in one state can claim the same status in a Union Territory where no Presidential Order for Scheduled Tribes exists.
2. Whether the advertisement issued by the appellant was valid in the absence of a Presidential Order for Scheduled Tribes in Chandigarh.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 1557 (Supreme Court of India): The court expounded on the object of issuance of public notification under Article 341 of the Constitution.
• State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 (Supreme Court of India): The court held that de hors a specific mention in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (as amended by Parliament), it was impermissible to hold an inquiry and declare that any tribe or tribal community to be included in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
• Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 130 (Supreme Court of India): The court held that when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof.
• Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra vs. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 244 (Supreme Court of India): The court relied upon the Constituent Assembly Debates to hold that the list of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes in a given State would correspond to the disadvantages and social hardships existing in the specific social context for a particular caste, tribe or class in that State.
• Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board (2018) 10 SCC 312 (Supreme Court of India): The court reiterated the well-settled principles enunciated in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action Committee regarding SC/ST reservation for persons who had migrated to the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
• Director, Transport Department, Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (2019) 6 SCC 434 (Supreme Court of India): The court sustained the High Court’s direction to appoint a person who had migrated to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and was a member of the Scheduled Tribe ‘Dhodia’ community as an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 341 of the Constitution of India: Defines the process for specifying Scheduled Castes.
• Article 342 of the Constitution of India: Defines the process for specifying Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 27(2) of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966: Provided for amendment of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) (Union Territories) Order, 1951, to include, with respect to Chandigarh, 36 castes enlisted in Part V of the Ninth Schedule of the said Act.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 1557: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the necessity of a public notification under Article 341.
• State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4: The Court used this case to highlight that only a Presidential order can include a tribe in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
• Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 130: The Court followed this case, stating that a person’s Scheduled Tribe status is specific to their state of origin.
• Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra vs. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 244: The Court reiterated the principle that the list of Scheduled Castes/Tribes corresponds to the social context of a specific state.
• Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board (2018) 10 SCC 312: The Court distinguished the case, noting that it had refrained from addressing the issue in question as far as other Union Territories apart from the National Capital Territory of Delhi are concerned.
• Director, Transport Department, Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (2019) 6 SCC 434: The Court distinguished this case, noting that a Presidential notification for Scheduled Tribes existed in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, unlike in Chandigarh.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the constitutional requirement of a Presidential notification under Article 342 for recognizing Scheduled Tribes in a Union Territory. The absence of such a notification for Scheduled Tribes in Chandigarh was a crucial factor. The court also emphasized the principle established in previous judgments that a person’s Scheduled Tribe status is specific to their state of origin and cannot be automatically transferred to another state or union territory. The court was also influenced by the fact that the letter dated 25.11.1985 from the Ministry of Welfare was contrary to the dictum of this court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the respondent’s argument based on the letter from the Ministry of Welfare, but rejected them. The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate of a Presidential notification under Article 342 cannot be overridden by administrative instructions. The Court also relied heavily on previous judgments to maintain consistency in the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to Scheduled Tribes.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent could not claim the benefit of being a Scheduled Tribe in Chandigarh based on his status in Rajasthan. The Court found that the advertisement issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board was erroneous because no such reservation for Scheduled Tribes could have been made without strict compliance with Article 342 of the Constitution. The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, the First Appellate Court, and the Trial Court.

The court stated, “The Presidential notification of a tribe or tribal community as a Scheduled Tribe by the President of India under Article 342 is a sine qua non for extending any benefits to the said community in any State or U.T.”

The court further added, “This implies that a person belonging to a group that is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in a State would be recognized a Scheduled Tribe only within the said State and not in a U.T. where he migrates if no such Presidential notification exists in the said U.T.”

The court also observed, “The said Brochure cannot override Article 342 of the Constitution of India which empowers the President of India to notify the Scheduled Tribes either for a State or for an Union Territory.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A person’s Scheduled Tribe status is specific to the state or union territory where it is recognized by a Presidential Order.
• Migrants cannot claim Scheduled Tribe benefits in a new state or union territory based on their status in their state of origin, unless there is a Presidential Order for that specific tribe in that state or union territory.
• Administrative instructions cannot override the constitutional requirement of a Presidential notification under Article 342.
• Housing boards and other authorities must ensure strict compliance with Article 342 when making reservations for Scheduled Tribes.

This judgment clarifies the legal position on Scheduled Tribe status for migrants and ensures that reservation benefits are extended only to those who are recognized as Scheduled Tribes in the specific state or union territory by a Presidential Order. It also emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and not relying on administrative instructions that may contradict the Constitution.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which in turn affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a person’s Scheduled Tribe status is specific to the state or union territory where it is recognized by a Presidential Order and cannot be automatically transferred to another state or union territory where no such order exists. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution and does not change the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Tarsem Lal clarifies that a person’s Scheduled Tribe status is specific to the state or union territory where it is recognized by a Presidential Order. The court held that the respondent, who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, could not claim the same status in Chandigarh, which lacks a Presidential Order recognizing any Scheduled Tribe. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and ensuring that reservation benefits are extended only to those who are recognized as Scheduled Tribes in the specific state or union territory.