SC/ST Status Doesn't Travel Across States Even When Caste Is Notified In Both States Of Origin & Migration: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Court applied the principle to a woman who had migrated from Uttar Pradesh to Madhya Pradesh after marriage and sought a permanent Scheduled Caste certificate in Madhya Pradesh. It dismissed her appeal against the rejection of that request.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a Single Judge’s decision affirming the orders by which the revenue authorities had refused to issue the permanent caste certificate.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, upon examining a series of Supreme Court precedents on the question, observed: “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.”

Advocate Harsh Gupta appeared for the appellant. Government Advocate Dr. Siddharth Singh Chouhan appeared for the State.

Background

The appellant was originally a resident of Uttar Pradesh and held a permanent Scheduled Caste certificate issued there. After marrying a resident of Madhya Pradesh, she migrated to that State and was initially issued a temporary certificate identifying her caste as “Ahirwar”. Her application for a permanent certificate was subsequently rejected because her paternal family was not residing in Madhya Pradesh in 1950.

The appellant contended that the “Chamar” caste recognised in Uttar Pradesh was equivalent to the “Ahirwar” caste notified as a Scheduled Caste in Madhya Pradesh. She argued that her migration resulted from marriage rather than a desire to obtain educational or employment benefits and stated that she intended to contest an election in Madhya Pradesh.

The State opposed the appeal by relying on the Constitution Bench decisions in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College, Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India and Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board.

Court’s Observations

Reservation Benefits Are State-Specific

The Court explained that Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution identify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to particular States. Relying on Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, the Bench stated that migration itself is not prohibited, but the person migrating cannot carry the special privileges granted in the State of origin into another State.

The Court observed: “When he migrates, then he does not carry and cannot carry the special rights and privileges attributed to him and granted to him in his original State.”

The Bench added that extending such privileges across States would render the constitutional expression “in relation to that State” ineffective and would be inconsistent with the purpose of the reservation scheme.

Referring to Action Committee, the Court stated that the disadvantages and social hardships supporting the inclusion of a caste in one State may not exist, or may exist to a different degree, in another State.

The Bench quoted the Supreme Court’s explanation: “Merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State.”

Same Caste Being Notified In Both States Does Not Alter The Rule

The Court acknowledged that Alka Singh v. State of M.P., U.P. Public Service Commission v. Madhu Rana and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Sanjay Kumar Singh had taken the view that benefits could accrue in the State of migration where the same caste was notified in both States.

The Bench, however, held that the subsequent three-Judge Bench decision in Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand had conclusively settled the issue. That case also concerned a woman who migrated after marriage to another State where the same caste was recognised as a Scheduled Caste.

Quoting Ranjana Kumari, the Court stated: “Merely because in the migrant State the same caste is recognised as Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be recognised as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State.”

The Bench held that the issuance of a caste certificate by the State of migration could not dilute the rule laid down by the Constitution Benches in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action Committee.

Rule Not Confined To Employment Or Education

The Court also addressed the appellant’s submission that she wanted the certificate to contest an election rather than to obtain employment or educational benefits.

Referring to Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram, the Bench stated that the principle governing interstate migration was not confined to employment, education or similar fields. It noted that the Supreme Court had applied the same rule while considering restrictions concerning the sale and purchase of land allotted to a Scheduled Caste person.

The Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s finding: “We see no reason to restrict the applicability of the decision of this Court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs only with respect to employment, education or the like.”

Claim Failed Even Assuming Equivalence Of Castes

The Court further found that no material had been placed on record to establish that “Chamar” in Uttar Pradesh and “Ahirwar” in Madhya Pradesh were the same caste. It nevertheless held that even if they were treated as equivalent, the appellant’s migration prevented her from claiming a Scheduled Caste certificate in Madhya Pradesh.

The Bench concluded: “Even if it is deemed to be so, then also we do not foresee any illegality in the action of the administrative authorities in refusing to issue a caste certificate to the petitioner.”

Conclusion

The Court found no illegality in the administrative authorities’ refusal to issue the appellant a permanent Scheduled Caste certificate in Madhya Pradesh. It also found no perversity in the Single Judge’s decision affirming that refusal and dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Uma Devi Navaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:80995)

Click here to read/download Judgment