Reservation for Scheduled Tribes in Union Territories Requires Presidential Notification – Supreme Court in Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal

Introduction

The landmark judgment in Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal (2024 INSC 119) delivered by the Supreme Court of India on February 7, 2024, addresses the critical issue of reservation for Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Union Territories (U.T.), specifically focusing on the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The appellant, Chandigarh Housing Board, challenged the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had decreed in favor of Tarsem Lal, a member of the Scheduled Tribes, entitling him to an allotted house reserved for STs. This case delves into the constitutional provisions governing reservations, the necessity of Presidential notifications under Articles 341 and 342, and the implications of these provisions for migrants from other states seeking benefits in Union Territories.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the appeal filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board against the High Court’s decision, which had upheld the allotment of a house to Tarsem Lal based on his Scheduled Tribe status from Rajasthan. The primary contention was whether such reservation for STs in Chandigarh was valid in the absence of a Presidential notification under Article 342 of the Constitution of India for the Union Territory. The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the constitutional framework, previous precedents, and the specific circumstances of Chandigarh, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. The Court held that without a Presidential notification recognizing any tribe as Scheduled Tribes in Chandigarh, the reservation was unconstitutional. Consequently, the judgments of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Authority, and the High Court were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court extensively referred to several pivotal Constitution Bench judgments to underpin its reasoning:

• Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College (1990) – Emphasized that Scheduled Castes and Tribes are recognized only through Presidential notifications specific to each State or Union Territory, and such status is not transferable across regions.
• Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India (1994) – Reinforced the principle that caste status is geographically confined unless recognized by corresponding Presidential orders.
• Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board (2018) – Clarified that benefits for Scheduled Tribes are confined to areas with specific Presidential notifications and do not extend to migrants from other States unless similarly recognized in the new jurisdiction.
• Director, Transport Department, Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa v. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (2019) – Distinguished the case due to the presence of a Presidential notification for Dadra and Nagar Haveli, unlike Chandigarh.
• Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh (1965) and State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) – Provided foundational interpretations of Articles 341 and 342, underscoring the imperative role of Presidential notifications in defining Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously examined Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, which empower the President to specify Scheduled Castes and Tribes for each State or Union Territory through public notifications. The absence of such a notification for Scheduled Tribes in Chandigarh meant that no individual could claim ST status within the Union Territory based solely on their status from another State. The Court emphasized that the identity of Scheduled Tribes is not merely a nominal designation but is intricately tied to the socio-economic context of each specific region.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that administrative provisions or brochures, such as those cited by the Chandigarh Administration, cannot supersede the constitutional mandate. The reliance on internal administrative communications without the requisite Presidential confirmation was deemed insufficient to confer reservation benefits.

The judgment also clarified that judicial bodies do not possess the authority to alter or bypass constitutional provisions regarding Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Such modifications are strictly within the purview of the Parliament, ensuring that the process remains insulated from judicial interpretations.

Impact

This landmark decision reinforces the sanctity of constitutional provisions concerning reservations, particularly emphasizing the necessity of Presidential notifications for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in each jurisdiction. The ruling has far-reaching implications:

• Union Territories must ensure that any reservations for Scheduled Tribes are backed by explicit Presidential notifications.
• Migrants seeking reservation benefits in a new State or Union Territory must obtain recognition through the appropriate constitutional channels in the destination region.
• Administrative bodies will need to reassess their reservation policies to align strictly with constitutional directives, preventing arbitrary or unauthorized reservation allocations.
• Future judicial reviews of reservation policies will likely hinge on the presence or absence of formal presidential recognitions, setting a clear precedent for similar cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal serves as a crucial affirmation of the constitutional processes governing reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. By underscoring the indispensability of Presidential notifications, the Court has reinforced the principle that socio-economic benefits cannot be extended arbitrarily and must align strictly with constitutional mandates. This decision not only clarifies the legal standing of reservations in Union Territories but also sets a definitive precedent for future cases involving migration and reservation claims. Ultimately, the judgment ensures that the integrity of affirmative action policies is maintained, guaranteeing that benefits reach their intended recipients based on clear and constitutionally sanctioned criteria.

This ruling embodies the Court's commitment to upholding constitutional propriety, ensuring that legislative and executive actions in the realm of social justice remain within the bounds of established legal frameworks. As such, stakeholders, including government bodies and beneficiaries, must diligently adhere to these guidelines to foster equitable and just practices in public resource allocation.