The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in Civil Appeal No. 18802 of 2017, filed by the Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna, and Ashish Rajak against the State of Bihar. The appeals challenged a resolution by the Bihar government dated July 1, 2015, which sought to merge the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste, listed under the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), with the “Pan/Sawasi” caste in the Scheduled Castes (SC) list.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, which governs the specification and modification of the Scheduled Castes list. Article 341(1) empowers the President to specify the castes, races, or tribes to be deemed as Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular state or union territory. Article 341(2) stipulates that any amendments to this list can only be made by Parliament through legislation, not by any state government or other authority.
Decision of the Court
The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, unequivocally quashed the Bihar government’s resolution. The court held that the state government had no authority to alter the SC list, as such power is exclusively vested in Parliament. The judgment emphasized that any inclusion or exclusion of castes in the SC list must be done through a law enacted by Parliament.
Important Observations of the Court
In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court made several important observations:
1. Constitutional Provisions: The court reiterated that Article 341 is explicit in its mandate that only Parliament can amend the SC list. The court stated, “From a plain reading of the Article and in particular sub-Clause 2, two things are clear โ first, the list specified under the notification under Clause-1 can be amended, altered only by law made by the Parliament. Secondly, it prohibits that but for a law made by Parliament, a notification issued under sub-Clause-1 cannot be varied by any subsequent notification” .
2. State’s Competence: The court rejected the Bihar government’s argument that the resolution was merely clarificatory, stating, “The submission of the respondent-State that Resolution dated 01.07.2015 was only clarificatory is not worth considering for a moment and deserves outright rejection” .
3. Mala Fide Action: The court found the state’s action to be mala fide and de hors constitutional provisions. It noted, “The State cannot be pardoned for the mischief done by it. Depriving the members of the Scheduled Castes covered by the lists under Article 341 of the Constitution is a serious issue” .
4. Impact on Beneficiaries: While the court quashed the resolution, it took a balanced approach regarding those who had already benefited from the resolution. It directed that such individuals should be accommodated under their original EBC category and that the SC quota posts they occupied should be returned to the SC category.
Also Read
Parties and Representation
– Appellants: Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna, and Ashish Rajak
– Respondents: State of Bihar & Others
– Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra
– Lawyers: Smt. Indira Jai Singh (Senior Counsel for the appellants), Sri Ranjeet Kumar (Senior Counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar), Sri Salman Khurshid, Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Sri V. Giri (Senior Counsel for the intervenors), and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati (Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India) .
