DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNA vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Case Analysis

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNA vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

November 27, 2024

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case examines the legality of a resolution by the State of Bihar merging the caste “Tanti-Tantwa” with “Pan/Sawasi” in the Scheduled Castes (SC) list. The Supreme Court found the resolution unconstitutional as it bypassed the prescribed process under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, which vests Parliament with the exclusive authority to amend the SC list. The Court quashed the resolution and directed measures to rectify the benefits extended improperly to the “Tanti-Tantwa” community under the SC category, restoring their original category of Extremely Backward Classes (EBC).

Keywords: Scheduled Castes, Extremely Backward Classes, Article 341, Constitutional authority, Bihar State Backward Commission.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 18802 of 2017

iii) Judgement Date:
July 15, 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Hon’ble Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra

vi) Author:
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 796 : 2024 INSC 528

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 341 of the Constitution of India
Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Act, 1991
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and its subsequent amendments.

ix) Judgments Overruled:
None specifically overruled but overturned the decision of the Patna High Court in CWJC No.12403 of 2015.

x) Related Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Reservation Law, Administrative Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute originated from a notification issued on July 1, 2015, by the Government of Bihar. Based on the State Backward Commission’s recommendations, the government attempted to transfer the caste “Tanti-Tantwa” from the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) category to the SC list under Entry 20. The resolution purportedly aimed at extending SC benefits to the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste.

The petitioners challenged the notification on the grounds that the State Government lacked the authority to alter the SC list, which is governed exclusively by Article 341 of the Constitution. They argued that such changes could only be made through Parliamentary legislation.

The Patna High Court upheld the government’s resolution, leading to appeals in the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Initial Categorization: The “Tanti-Tantwa” caste was listed as an EBC under Bihar’s 1991 Act.
Government Action: The State issued a notification merging the caste with “Pan/Sawasi” in the SC list, citing socio-historical similarities.
Legal Challenge: Petitioners argued this merger violated Article 341, which reserves such powers to Parliament.
High Court’s Decision: The Patna High Court upheld the State’s action, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the State Government has the authority to alter the SC list under Article 341.
ii. Whether the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste was rightly categorized as synonymous with “Pan/Sawasi”.
iii. Legality of extending SC benefits to members of “Tanti-Tantwa” caste under a State notification.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Unconstitutional Authority: Counsel argued that Article 341 prohibits States from altering the SC list.
ii. Prior Rejection by RGI: The Registrar General of India (RGI) had rejected the State’s 2011 recommendation to include “Tanti-Tantwa” in the SC list.
iii. Mala Fide Action: The notification was termed a mala fide attempt to bypass constitutional procedures and extend undue benefits.
iv. Non-Severability of Notification: The petitioners contended that the notification’s two parts—removal from EBC and inclusion in SC—were inseparable and must be struck down in entirety.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Clarification, Not Alteration: The State argued the resolution only clarified that “Tanti-Tantwa” was synonymous with “Pan/Sawasi”.
ii. Binding Recommendations: The State claimed it acted on binding recommendations of the State Backward Commission.
iii. Socio-Historical Evidence: Ethnographic reports and past recommendations supported the claim of synonymity between the castes.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court held that Article 341 explicitly reserves the power to amend SC lists to Parliament. The State exceeded its authority in issuing the notification, violating constitutional provisions. The Court quashed the resolution as unconstitutional and directed corrective measures.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court emphasized the need for adherence to constitutional processes to prevent misuse of reservation policies.

c. GUIDELINES

Posts in SC quotas filled by “Tanti-Tantwa” candidates must revert to genuine SC members.
“Tanti-Tantwa” candidates to be restored to the EBC category with State assistance.
No recovery of benefits from “Tanti-Tantwa” candidates due to State’s fault.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case underscores the importance of constitutional mechanisms in reservation law. It clarifies that State governments cannot bypass Parliament in amending SC lists, ensuring equitable application of affirmative action.

Case Analysis