Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court set aside Canara Bank's show-cause notices to employees who were appointed under the Scheduled Castes (SC) quota based on valid caste certificates. The notices had been issued after a 1977 government circular, which equated the 'Kotegara' community with an SC category, was later deemed invalid following the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Milind,2000.

• The Court clarified that only the President can modify SC and ST lists under Articles 341 and 342 of Constitution of India,1950 , rendering the state government's modification void.
• Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta held in K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.

What was the Background of k. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr. Case?

• The appellants were employed by various banks and government undertakings in Karnataka in positions reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC).
• The appellants obtained SC caste certificates certifying they belonged to the 'Kotegara' community, which was considered under Scheduled Caste by Karnataka government circulars.
• A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that state governments have no authority to amend or modify the Scheduled Castes list, as this power is reserved for Parliament.
• Following this ruling, the Ministry of Finance declared the Karnataka government circulars including 'Kotegara' in the SC list to be invalid.
• The Karnataka government subsequently issued circulars in 2002 and 2003 providing protection to individuals employed based on the earlier invalidated caste certificates, allowing them to be treated as General Merit category candidates.
• The appellants' caste certificates were cancelled by the District Caste Verification Committee.
• Criminal proceedings were initiated against some appellants but were later quashed by the High Court.
• The employers (banks and undertakings) issued show-cause notices to the appellants asking why their services should not be terminated based on the cancellation of their caste certificates.
• The appellants challenged these notices through writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court, which were rejected by both the Single Judge and Division Bench.
• The appellants then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decisions.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court recognized that while the appellants obtained their Scheduled Caste certificates through due process based on Karnataka Government circulars, the state lacked the constitutional authority to modify Scheduled Caste lists, as only Parliament can do so under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
• Following the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 2000 the Government of Karnataka issued circulars (dated 11th March 2002 and 29th March 2003) to protect the employment of individuals who had obtained caste certificates prior to de-scheduling, while reclassifying them as General Merit candidates for future purposes.
• The Court held that the Ministry of Finance's 17th August 2005 communication, which ratified Karnataka's decision and extended protection to bank employees, takes precedence over the 8th July, 2013 Office Memorandum that was issued without considering the crucial 29th March, 2003 circular.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the appellants are entitled to protection of their services under the 29th March, 2003 circular and the 17th August, 2005 Ministry of Finance communication, thereby quashing any proposed action to terminate their employment and setting aside the impugned judgments of the High Court's Division Bench.

What is Article 341 and Article 342 of Indian Constitution?

• The Constitution of India does not explicitly define who belongs to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Article 342 empowers the President to specify, by public notification, the tribes or tribal communities deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to a particular State or Union territory.
• For States, the President must consult with the Governor before issuing such a notification.
• The initial Presidential notification under Article 342(1) can be modified only by an Act of Parliament, as per Article 342(2).
• Parliament may, by law, include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes any tribe, tribal community, or part thereof specified in the Presidential notification.
• Once issued, a notification under Article 342(1) cannot be varied by any subsequent notification, except through an Act of Parliament.
• The determination of whether a particular group is a Scheduled Tribe must be based on the public notification issued by the President under Article 342(1).
• Similar provisions exist for Scheduled Castes under Article 341 of the Constitution.
• Any question regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a particular tribe within the meaning of Article 342 must be resolved by referring to the Presidential notification.
• The Constitution provides special provisions for the protection of interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, though these are not enumerated in the given text.
• The power to modify the list of Scheduled Tribes (or Scheduled Castes) is vested solely with the Parliament, emphasizing the significance and sensitivity of such classifications.

What are the Legal Provisions of Article 341 and Article 342?

Article 341:

• Article 341 deals with Scheduled Castes.
• It states that:
  • The President of India is vested with the authority to specify, through public notification, which castes, races, tribes, or parts thereof shall be deemed Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular State or Union Territory.
  • For States, the President is required to consult with the Governor of the concerned State before issuing such a notification.
  • The power to modify the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the Presidential notification is exclusively reserved for the Parliament of India.
  • Parliament may, by enacting a law, include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes any caste, race, tribe, or part thereof.
  • Once a notification has been issued under clause (1) of Article 341, it cannot be varied by any subsequent notification except through an Act of Parliament as stipulated in clause (2).

Article 342:

• Article 342 deals with Scheduled Tribes.
• The President of India has the authority to specify, through public notification, which tribes or tribal communities shall be deemed Scheduled Tribes for constitutional purposes.
• This presidential power extends to any State or Union territory of India.
• In the case of States, the President must consult with the Governor of the concerned State before issuing such a notification.
• The specification of Scheduled Tribes may include entire tribes/communities or parts/groups within them.
• Once a notification is issued under clause (1) of Article 342, it cannot be varied by any subsequent notification.
• Only the Parliament of India, through enacted law, has the power to include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the presidential notification.
• The Parliament's power to amend the list is an exception to the general rule that prohibits variation of the original notification.
• The constitutional process for designating Scheduled Tribes involves a two-step process:
  • Initial specification by the President, followed by potential modification only through parliamentary legislation.

What are Landmark Judgments on Article 341 and Article 342 of Indian Constitution?

• State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2000):
  • The Supreme Court held that only Parliament has the power to amend the list of Scheduled Castes through an Act under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, State governments do not have the authority to modify these lists.
• State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012):
  • The Supreme Court of India affirmed that under Article 341(1) of the Constitution, the President has the exclusive authority to specify which castes, races, or tribes shall be deemed Scheduled Castes.
  • This ruling clarified the scope and interpretation of Article 341, emphasizing the President's role in determining Scheduled Caste status.
• State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
  • The Supreme Court held that reserving seats in educational institutions solely on caste contravenes the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution.
  • This judgment interpreted Article 15(4), which provides for special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, setting a precedent for the limits of caste-based reservations.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
  • In this landmark case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservation policies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.
  • However, the Court imposed a 50% cap on reservations and established guidelines for their implementation, significantly shaping India's affirmative action policies.
• V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004):
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the categorization of Scheduled Castes into subgroups does not amount to 'tinkering' with the Presidential list and is constitutionally permissible.
  • The Court clarified that under Articles 341 and 342, while the President has the power to specify Scheduled Castes and Tribes, any subsequent modifications to these lists can only be made by Parliament through legislation.
  • This judgment highlights the constitutional provisions regarding the classification and modification of Scheduled Caste lists.