O R D E R

1. The present appeals are directed against the order dated 15th March, 2013, passed in a review petition1 and judgment dated 12th September, 2012, passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in a Writ Petition2 filed by the appellant herein wherein, a question was required to be answered with respect to the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India, in the context of differing standards of what is permissible reservation applicable on the one hand to residents of States who take up residence in one State, as opposed to residents of States who take up residence in Union Territories. The issue raised as to whether a person can carry the status as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe owing to migration from one State to the another because of marriage, has been answered in the following manner:

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2024.08.06

17:29:57 IST Reason:

1 R.P. No. 671/2012 in W.P.(C) No.8368/2010 W.P.(C) No. 8368/2010 “66. This Court summarizes its conclusions, as follows:

(1) The decisions in Marri, Action Committee, Milind and Channaiah have all ruled that Scheduled Caste and Tribe citizens moving from one State to another cannot claim reservation benefits, whether or not their caste, is notified in the State where they migrate to, since the exercise of notifying Scheduled Castes or Tribes is region (State) specific, i.e " in relation" to the State of their origin. These judgments also took note of the Presidential Notifications, which had enjoined such citizens to be "residents" in relation to the state which provided for such reservations.

(2) The considerations which apply to Scheduled Caste and Tribe citizens who migrate from State to State, apply equally in respect of those who migrate from a State to a Union Territory, in view of the text of Articles 341 (1) and 342 (1), i.e. only those Castes and Tribes who are notified in relation to the concerned Union Territory, are entitled to such benefits. This is reinforced by the Presidential Notification in relation to Union Territories, of 1951. Only Parliament can add to such Notification, and include other Castes, or Tribes, in view of Articles 341 (2), Article 342 (2) which is also reinforced by Article 16(3). States cannot legislate on this aspect; nor can the executive - Union or State, add to or alter the Castes, or Tribes in any notification in relation to a State or Union Territory, either through State legislation or through policies or circulars. Differentiation between residents of States, who migrate to States, and residents of States who migrate to Union Territories would result in invidious discrimination and over- classification thus denying equal access to reservation benefits, to those who are residents of Union Territories, and whose Castes or Tribes are included In the Presidential Order in respect of such Union Territories. The Pushpa interpretation has led to peculiar consequences, whereby:

(i) The resident of a State, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, notified in that State, cannot claim reservation benefit, if he takes up residence in another State, whether or not his caste is included in the latter State's list of Scheduled Castes;

(ii) However, the resident of a State who moves to a Union Territory would be entitled to carry his reservation benefit, and status as member of Scheduled Caste, even if his Caste is not included as a Scheduled Caste, for that Union Territory;

(iii) The resident of a Union Territory would however, be denied the benefit of reservation, if he moves to a State, because he is not a resident Scheduled Caste of that State.

(iv) The resident of a Union Territory which later becomes a State, however, can insist that after such event, residents of other States, whose castes may or may not be notified, as Scheduled Caste cannot be treated as such members In such newly formed States;

(v) Conversely, the Scheduled Caste resident of a State which is con