TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: SC/ST status state-specific, not transferable to migrants. Benefits limited to state of origin.</h1> The Supreme Court affirmed that Scheduled Caste/Tribe status is state-specific and does not transfer to migrants in another state. Relying on precedent, ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of Migrants to Scheduled Caste/Tribe Benefits in Another State2. Constitutional Provisions and Presidential Orders3. Validity of Government Circulars and Instructions4. Fundamental Rights and EqualitySummary:1. Entitlement of Migrants to Scheduled Caste/Tribe Benefits in Another State:The core issue addressed was whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in State A, upon migrating to State B, can claim the privileges and benefits admissible to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in State B. The petitioners argued that denying these benefits violates Articles 14, 15(1), 16(2), and 19 of the Constitution. They contended that the denial is contrary to Articles 341 and 342, which specify castes and tribes in relation to each state.2. Constitutional Provisions and Presidential Orders:Articles 341 and 342 empower the President to specify Scheduled Castes and Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, were issued under these articles. The petitioners argued that these orders should allow for the same caste or tribe to be recognized across multiple states, enabling migrants to retain their Scheduled Caste/Tribe status and benefits.3. Validity of Government Circulars and Instructions:The Government of India issued a communication on 22-3-1977, clarifying that Scheduled Caste/Tribe certificates should be issued based on the 'permanent residence' at the time of the Presidential Order notification. Subsequent instructions by the State of Maharashtra required individuals to be permanent residents before specific dates in 1950 to qualify for benefits. The petitioners challenged these instructions, arguing they were arbitrary and violated constitutional provisions.4. Fundamental Rights and Equality:The petitioners claimed that the denial of benefits to migrants violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19. They cited previous judgments from the Bombay High Court that granted relief to similar petitioners. However, the respondents argued that the Constitution Bench's decision in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College conclusively answered the issue, stating that Scheduled Caste/Tribe status is specific to the state of origin and does not transfer upon migration.Conclusion:The Supreme Court, referencing the Constitution Bench's decision in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, upheld that Scheduled Caste/Tribe status is state-specific and does not extend to migrants in another state. The Court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the interpretation that the benefits and privileges are confined to the state of origin and do not violate constitutional provisions. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
