Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Ors. has invalidated the Bihar Government's 2015 resolution merging the "Tanti-Tantwa" community from the Extremely Backward Castes list into the Scheduled Caste list, citing lack of authority under Article 341.  

• The court criticized the state's action as mala fide and directed that appointments made under the resolution be reverted to the Scheduled Castes quota.  
• It emphasized that any changes to Scheduled Castes lists require parliamentary legislation and not executive orders. 

What was the Background of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Ors.? 

• In 1950, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order listed 'Pan' as a Scheduled Caste in Bihar. 
• In 1956, this was amended to 'Pan or Sawasi'. 
• In 2002, it was further amended to 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr'. 
• The Bihar government listed 'Tanti-Tantwa' as an Extremely Backward Class in 1992. 
• In 2011, Bihar recommended to the central government to include 'Tanti-Tantwa' in the Scheduled Castes list as a synonym of 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr'. 
• The central government did not approve this recommendation in 2013 and asked Bihar for further justification. 
• On 1st July 2015, without central approval, Bihar issued a notification to: 
  • Remove 'Tanti-Tantwa' from the Extremely Backward Classes list 
  • Merge 'Tanti-Tantwa' with 'Pan/Sawasi' in the Scheduled Castes list 
• This notification was challenged in the Patna High Court, which upheld its legality in April 2017. 
• The current appeal was against the High Court's decision arguing that the state government lacks the constitutional authority to modify the Scheduled Castes list without parliamentary approval. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Bihar Government's 2015 resolution merging "Tanti-Tantwa" with the Scheduled Caste list was struck down as unconstitutional. 
  • The Court ruled that state governments have no authority to modify Scheduled Caste lists published under Article 341 of the Constitution. 
  • Only Parliament has the power to amend, add, delete, or modify the Scheduled Castes list through enacted law. 
• The Court deemed the state's action as mala fide and in violation of constitutional provisions. 
• The Court criticized the state for depriving legitimate Scheduled Caste members of their benefits by extending them to an undeserving community. 
• The Court clarified that the State Backward Commission's recommendations are only applicable to Extremely Backward Classes, not Scheduled Castes. 
  • Despite finding the appointments illegal, the Court did not invalidate them to avoid penalizing individual beneficiaries. 
  • The Court directed that Scheduled Caste quota positions filled by "Tanti-Tantwa" community members since 2015 be returned to the Scheduled Castes category. 
  • The Court ordered that affected "Tanti-Tantwa" community members be accommodated in their original Extremely Backward Classes category. 

What is Article 341 of Indian Constitution? 

• About  
  • Article 341 of the Indian Constitution pertains to the specification of Scheduled Castes.   
  • It empowers the President to designate certain castes, races, or tribes as Scheduled Castes for specific states or union territories through public notification. 
  • It authorizes only Parliament to modify (include or exclude) the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the Presidential notification through enacted legislation. 
  • It prohibits any alteration to the Presidential notification by subsequent notifications, ensuring that changes can only be made through parliamentary law. 
  • This article thus establishes a constitutional mechanism for identifying and modifying the list of Scheduled Castes, centralizing this power with the national government to maintain consistency and prevent arbitrary changes. 
• Legal Provision  
  • Article 341 of Constitution of India deals with Scheduled Castes. 
  • It states that 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 groups 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. 
  • Sub Article(2) parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. 
• The Process:  
  • The state government usually initiates the proposal for inclusion or exclusion of a community in the SC list. 
  • This proposal is then sent to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. 
  • After scrutiny, if found suitable, the proposal is sent to the Registrar General of India for approval. 
  • Once approved, it is sent to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes for their recommendation. 
  • Finally, a bill is introduced in Parliament to amend the list. 

Case Law 

• State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001): The Supreme Court held that only those castes mentioned in the Presidential Order under Article 341 can be deemed Scheduled Castes. State governments cannot expand this list. 
• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004): The Court ruled that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for reservation purposes is unconstitutional, as Article 341 treats all Scheduled Castes as a single homogeneous group. 
• Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board (2018): The Court clarified that a person claiming SC status must belong to the caste specified for that particular state in the Presidential Order under Article 341. 
• State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors, (2024): The Bench contended that sub-classification within SCs would violate the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution. 
  • The bench also observed that in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1992) Supreme Court observed on page 725 that the discussion of creamy layer is confined to other backward classes only and has no relevance in the case of SC and ST. 
  • The court said that by the impugned legislation, the State has sought to re-group the homogeneous group specified in Presidential Notification for the purposes of reservation and appointments.