Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a person migrating from one state to another cannot claim Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) benefits in the state of migration, even if the same caste is recognised as a reserved category in both states.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Y Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain dismissed an appeal filed by a woman who had migrated from Uttar Pradesh to Madhya Pradesh after marriage and challenged the rejection of her application for a permanent Scheduled Caste certificate.
The court held that constitutional provisions governing the identification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are state-specific and that migration does not automatically entitle an individual to reservation-related privileges in the destination state.
“Upon migration to a different state, the migrant is not entitled to get benefits of privileges and concessions available as a member of SC or ST category, even if the same caste is notified as SC or ST in both the states, i.e. the State of Origin and the State of Migration,” the Bench observed.
The appellant, originally a resident of Uttar Pradesh, possessed a permanent Scheduled Caste certificate issued by that state. Following her marriage to a Madhya Pradesh resident, she moved to the state and was initially issued a temporary certificate identifying her caste as Ahirwar.
However, her application for a permanent certificate was rejected by the authorities on the ground that her paternal family was not residing in Madhya Pradesh in 1950.
Challenging the decision, the woman argued that the Chamar caste recognised as a Scheduled Caste in Uttar Pradesh was equivalent to the Ahirwar caste notified in Madhya Pradesh. She submitted that her migration was occasioned by marriage and not undertaken to secure educational or employment benefits. She also stated that she intended to contest an election in Madhya Pradesh.
The Bench observed that Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution provide for the identification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to specific states.
It further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand, which held that recognition of the same caste in the state of migration does not automatically confer Scheduled Caste status on a migrant.
The court also rejected the argument that the restriction should apply only to employment and educational benefits. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram, it held that the principle governing interstate migration was not limited to such purposes.
The Bench additionally noted that the appellant had not produced material establishing that Chamar in Uttar Pradesh and Ahirwar in Madhya Pradesh were the same caste. However, it clarified that even assuming the two were equivalent, she would not be entitled to claim a permanent Scheduled Caste certificate in Madhya Pradesh on the basis of her migration.
Finding no illegality in the administrative authorities’ decision and no perversity in the Single Judge’s order upholding it, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
