Holding

A State Government cannot alter the Scheduled Castes list prescribed under Article 341; therefore, the 1 July 2015 resolution merging "Tanti‑Tantwa" with the "Pan/Sawasi" entry is illegal and is quashed.

Summary

The State of Bihar issued a resolution on 1 July 2015, based on the State Backward Commission’s recommendation, to delete the "Tanti‑Tantwa" caste from the Extremely Backward Classes list and merge it with the "Pan/Sawasi" entry in the Scheduled Castes list, thereby extending Scheduled Caste benefits to its members. The petitioners challenged the resolution, arguing that only Parliament can amend the Scheduled Castes list prescribed under Article 341 of the Constitution, and that the State had no authority to make such a change. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional provisions of Articles 341 and 366(24), the legislative history of the Scheduled Castes Orders, and the statutory framework governing backward class commissions. It held that the resolution was ultra vires, as the State cannot alter the Scheduled Castes list without a parliamentary law, and that the State’s action was a mala‑fide exercise. Consequently, the Court quashed the resolution, ordered that posts filled by "Tanti‑Tantwa" members under the Scheduled Caste quota be returned to the Scheduled Caste category, and directed that those members be accommodated in their original Extremely Backward Classes quota. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The State of Bihar’s competence to merge the "Tanti‑Tantwa" caste into the Scheduled Castes list under Article 341.
Whether a State can amend the Scheduled Castes list without a parliamentary amendment.
The legal effect of the 1 July 2015 resolution on appointments made under the Scheduled Caste quota.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Scheduled Castes list"Tanti‑Tantwa" caste"Pan/Sawasi" casteMerging of caste "Tanti‑Tantwa" with "Pan/Sawasi"State Backward CommissionExtremely Backward ClassesBenefits of the Scheduled CastesResolution dated 01.07.2015Mala fide exerciseArticle 341 of the Constitution

Judgment

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

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna
v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No.18802 of 2017)
15 July 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the Resolution passed by
the State Government based upon the recommendations by the
State Backward Commission that in the list of Extremely Backward
Classes, the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste be merged in the Scheduled
Castes list with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ mentioned at Serial No.
Entry 20 so that they could get benefits of the Scheduled Castes.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 341 – Bihar Reservation of Vacancies
in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 – Scheduled
Castes list – Merging of caste “Tanti-Tantwa” with the caste
‘Pan/Sawasi’ – Resolution passed by the State Government
based upon the recommendations by the State Backward
Commission – In the list of Extremely Backward Classes, the
“Tanti-Tantwa” caste be merged in the Scheduled Castes list
with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’mentioned at Serial No. Entry 20 so
that they could get benefits of the Scheduled Castes – Legality:
Held: Resolution dated 01.07.2015 is illegal, erroneous as the
State Government had no competence/authority/power to tinker
with the lists of Scheduled Castes published u/Art. 341 – State may
be justified in deleting “Tanti-Tantwa” from the Extremely Backward
Classes list on the recommendation of the State Backward
Commission, but to merge “Tanti-Tantwa” with ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’
under Entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes was a mala fide
exercise – Whether synonymous or not, any inclusion or exclusion
of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within the castes,
races or tribes has to be, by law made by the Parliament, and
not by any other mode or manner – Whether or not to include or

* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 797

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.

exclude any caste in the list of Extremely Backward Class would
be within the domain of the Commission – The Commission would
have no jurisdiction to make recommendation with respect to any
caste being included in the Scheduled Castes lists and, even if it
makes such a recommendation, right or wrong, the State has no
authority to proceed to implement the same when it was fully aware
that the Constitution does not permit it to do so – Provisions of
Art. 341 sub-clause 1 and 2 are very clear and discrete – There is
no ambiguity or vagueness otherwise requiring any interpretation
other than what is mentioned therein – State of Bihar tried to read
something in order to suit its own ends for whatever reason – Thus,
the High Court erred in upholding the said Notification – Impugned
Resolution dated 01.07.2015 is quashed – As regards protecting
those Members of “Tanti-Tantwa” community who were extended
benefit of Scheduled Castes pursuant to the Resolution, the action
of the State is found to be mala fide and de hors the constitutional
provisions – State cannot be pardoned for the mischief done by it –
Any person not deserving and not covered by such list if extended
such benefit for deliberate and mischievous reasons by the State,
cannot take away the benefit of the members of the Scheduled
Castes – Such appointments would under law on the findings
recorded would be liable to be set aside – However, fault is of
the State and not of any individual member of the “Tanti-Tantwa”
community – As such issuance of direction that such posts of the
Scheduled Castes Quota which had been filled up by members of
“Tanti-Tantwa” community availing benefit on the basis of Resolution
may be returned to the Scheduled Castes category and such
candidates of “Tanti-Tantwa” community be accommodated by the
State in their original category of Extremely Backward Classes.
[Paras 36-39, 41, 42]

Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone [2020] 11
SCR 597 : (2021) 13 SCC 336 – referred to.

List of Acts
Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes)
Act, 1991; Constitution of India; Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
798 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(Amendment) Act, 1956; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Orders (Amendment) Bill, 1967; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976; Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Orders (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Bihar State
Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993.

List of Keywords
Scheduled Castes list; “Tanti-Tantwa” caste; ‘Pan/Sawasi’ caste;
Merging of caste “Tanti-Tantwa” with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’; State
Backward Commission; Extremely Backward Classes; Benefits of
the Scheduled Castes; Resolution dated 01.07.2015; Mala fide
exercise; Art. 341 of the Constitution.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.18802 of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No.12403 of 2015
With
Civil Appeal No. 7793 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv., Deepak Jain, K.B. Pradeep, Jaspreet
Aulakh, Ms. Anoushka Singh, Ms. Dashampreet Kaur, Vaibhav Manu
Srivastava, Ms. Twinkle Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ranjit Kumar, Rakesh Dwivedi, Rakesh
Khanna, V. Giri, Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advs., Manish Kumar, Suyash
Vyas, Animesh Kumar, Neeraj Shekhar, Nishant Kumar, Ms. Aprajita,
Ayush Kumar, Amrendra Singh, Ram Bachan Choudhary, Mrs. Kshama
Sharma, Kartik Kumar, Navin Prakash, Rahul Narang, Rao Vishwaja,
Harshed Sundar, Nihar Dharmadhikari, Ram Shankar Das, Ms. Lubna
Naaz, Zafar Khurshid, Amit Singh Chauhan, Mohit Kocchhar, Rajat
Nair, Mrs. Swati Ghildiyal, Mrs. Shivika Mehra, Mrs. Shagun Thakur,
Mrs. Satvika Thakur, Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Amrish Kumar, B S Rajesh
Agrajit, Shyamal Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Sukhdeep Kaur, Bitu
Kumar Singh, Ms. Jyoti Rana, Satya Veer Singh, Ms. Priya Nagar,
Mrs. Meetu Goswami, Siddharth Goswami, Vinay Kumar Ojha, Ms. Raj
Bala, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, Anilendra Pandey, Ms. Priya Kashyap,
Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, C. P. Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 799

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Application(s) for intervention/impleadment is/are allowed.
2. Leave granted in SLP (CIVIL) No. 18294 of 2021.
3. These two appeals assail the correctness of the judgment and order
dated 3rd April, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High
Court whereby a group of four (4) writ petitions and one Letters
Patent Appeal were decided by a common judgment dismissing all
the five cases. The challenge in the writ petitions and the appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court was to a Notification
dated 1st July, 2015, whereby the State Government had passed
a resolution based upon consideration of recommendations by
the State Backward Commission which had recommended that in
the list of Extremely Backward Classes published under the Bihar
Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991,
the caste “Tanti-Tantwa” recorded at Serial No.33 be deleted and
the said “Tanti-Tantwa” be merged in the Scheduled Castes list
with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ mentioned at Serial No.20 so that
they could get benefit of the Scheduled Castes. The operative part
of the Resolution as contained in the aforesaid Notification dated
01.07.2015 is reproduced hereunder in the original Hindi language:
“अत: रााज्य सरकाार नेे भलीी-भांं�ति� वि�चाारोोपरांं�त नि�र्णणय लि�याा हैै कि� पि�छडेे वर्गोो केे लि�ए
रााज्य आयोोग कीी उपर्युु�क्त सलााह केे आलोोक मेंं बि�हाार पदोो एवंं सेेवााओ कीी रि�क्ति�योो मेंं
आरक्षण (अनुुसूूचि�त जााति�योो, अनुुसूूचि�त जनजााति�योो एवंं अन्य पि�छडेे वर्गोो केे लि�ए)
अधि�नि�यम 1991 कीी अत्यंंत पि�छडेे वर्गोो कीी सूूचीी (अनुुसूूचीी-1) केे क्रमांं�क-33 पर दर्जज
"तांं�तीी (ततवाा)” जााति� कोो वि�लोोपि�त कर दि�याा जााए तााकि� तांं�तीी (ततवाा) कोो अनुुसूूचि�त
जााति� कीी सूूचीी मेंं क्रमांं�क-20 पर दर्जज पाान/स्वाासीी केे सााथ समाावेेशन पर अनुुसूूचि�त जााति�
काा लााभ मि�ल सकेे ।"
4. The challenge in the writ petitions and the LPA before the Division
Bench was to the second part of the said Resolution quoted above
whereby “Tanti-Tantwa” caste was sought to be merged with Entry-20
of the Scheduled Castes list namely, the caste of 'Pan/Sawasi' and
to extend all benefits of the Scheduled Castes.
800 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

5. The challenge was mainly on the ground that the State Government
had no competence/authority/power to add a caste or sub-caste to
any entry in the Scheduled Castes list notified under the Presidential
Order under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Once the list
under the Presidential Order is published, thereafter, any amendment,
addition, deletion or modification to the said list can be made only by
law enacted by Parliament and not otherwise. Before the High Court,
the respondent-State of Bihar as also other private respondents
took up a plea that the impugned Notification dated 01.07.2015
does not meddle with the Presidential Order and the list published
thereunder but, in fact, it was only that “Tanti-Tantwa” were one
and the same as 'Pan/Sawasi' except that they had the special
title within the caste of 'Pan/Sawasi' and were being referred to
as “Tanti-Tantwa” in the State of Bihar and, therefore, it was not
a case of alteration of the list but only of clarification. It was also
submitted by the respondents before the High Court that the State
Government was bound by the recommendations made by the
State Backward Commission and had, therefore, rightly deleted
“Tanti-Tantwa” from the list of Extremely Backward Classes and
merged with the Entry-20 of 'Pan/Sawasi' in the list of Scheduled
Castes published in 1976.
6. The High Court accepted the submissions of the respondents, as
noted above and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions as also
the LPA, filed by the appellants vide impugned judgment dated
03.04.2017.
7. It is this order of the High Court dated 3rd April, 2017 which is under
challenge in the present two appeals.
8. We have heard Smt. Indira Jai Singh, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, Sri Ranjeet
Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar,
Sri Salman Khurshid, Sri Rakesh Dwivedi and Sri V. Giri, learned
Senior Counsel for the intervenors and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned
Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India.
9. We will now deal with the following aspects in order to arrive at a
just and proper conclusion.
(1) What the Constitution of India provides regarding preparation
of list for Scheduled Castes for different States.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 801

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.

(2) How a list declared under the Presidential Order can be altered,
modified or amended.
(3) What does the Constitution provide regarding the Backward
Classes for every State.
(4) The entries in the Presidential Order of 1950 and the subsequent
Amendments made by the Parliament in the list published under
the Presidential Order of 1950.
(5) What the State decides regarding the Backward Classes.
(6) The correspondence between the State of Bihar and the Central
Government/Union of India.
(7) The stand of the Union of India before the High Court and
before this Court.
(8) The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants,
respondents and the intervenors.
(9) Analysis of the arguments.
(10) Conclusion.
10. “Scheduled Castes” is defined in the Constitution under Article
366(24) thereof. It reads as follows:
“366(24). "Scheduled Castes" means such castes, races
or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or
tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be Scheduled
Castes for the purposes of this Constitution.”
11. Article 341 confers power on the President of India to specify
the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes,
races or tribes which, for the purpose of the Constitution, be
deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or
Union Territory. Further, sub-Clause 2 of Article 341 provides
that the Parliament may, by law, include or exclude from the
list of Scheduled Castes specified in a Notification issued under
Clause-1 any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any
caste, race or tribe. It further creates a prohibition that, save as
aforesaid, a Notification issued under Clause-1 shall not be varied
by any subsequent Notification. Article 341 of the Constitution
reads as follows:
802 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“Article 341. (1) The President may with respect to
any State or Union territory, and where it is a State,
after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public
notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of
or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the
purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled
Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the
case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued
under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group
within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a
notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied
by any subsequent notification.”
12. From a plain reading of the above Article and in particular sub-
Clause 2, two things are clear – first, the list specified under the
Notification under Clause-1 can be amended, altered only by law
made by Parliament and, second, it prohibits that but for a law
made by Parliament a notification issued under sub-Clause-1
cannot be varied by any subsequent notification. That is to say that
neither the Central Government, nor the President can make any
amendments or changes in the notification issued under Clause-1
specifying the castes in relation to the States or Union territory,
as the case may be.
13. Another aspect to be noted from a plain reading of the above Article
is that, it does not deal with merely castes, races or tribes but also
parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes, therefore, if any
change is to be made with respect to inclusion or exclusion not only
of any caste, race or tribe but also of a part of or group within any
of the caste, race or tribe the same has to be done by law made
by the Parliament.
14. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was first notified
on 10 th August, 1950 and published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary on 11th August, 1950. With respect to the State of
Bihar, the following list was mentioned in the Schedule as “Part
II-Bihar”:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 803

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.

“1. Throughout the State:

1. Bauri
2. Bantar
3. Bhogta
4. Chamar
5. Chaupal
6. Dhobi
7. Dom
8. Dusadh, including Dhari or Dharhi
9. Ghasi
10. Halalkhor
11. Hari, including Mehtar
12. Kanjar
13. Kurariar
14. Lalbegi
15. Mochi
16. Musahar
17. Nat
18. Pan
19. Pasi
20. Rajwar
21. Turi”
15. ‘Pan Caste’ was specified as a Scheduled Caste throughout the
State of Bihar under the above notification mentioned at Serial No.18.
16. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment)
Act, 1956, which was enacted by the Parliament being Act No.63 of
1956, with respect to the State of Bihar and the Entry of the caste
with which these appeals relate to, at Serial No.18 ‘Pan’ as originally
mentioned in the order of 1950, was replaced by ‘Pan or Sawasi’.
17. In the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment)
Bill, 1967 enacted by the Parliament in the 20th year of the Republic
of India, the list with respect to the State of Bihar mentioned in
Part-III of the Schedule at Serial No.20, the following Entry of the
804 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Castes was made as ‘Pan; Sawasi, Tanti-Tantwa’. This bill never
came to be enacted as an Act of Parliament and accordingly must
have lapsed.
18. The next Amendment then came was the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 was enacted by
the Parliament in the 27th year of the Republic of India, according
to which, Entry-20 in Part-III of the Schedule with respect to the
State of Bihar, the entry remained the same as that in the 1956
Amendment i.e. ‘Pan, Sawasi’.
19. By the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders (Second Amendment)
Act, 2002 enacted by the Parliament in the 53rd year of the Republic
of India, Entry 20 for the State of Bihar was substituted by ‘Pan,
Sawasi, Panr’.
20. Article 338-B of the Constitution provides that the State Government
may establish Commission for Backward Classes.
21. The legislature of the State of Bihar enacted the Bihar State
Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 (State Act No.12 of
1993) for establishing a State Commission for Backward Classes
and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 9 of the said Act defines the functions of the Commission;
Section 10 defines the powers of the Commission and Section 11
provides that the State Government shall do a periodic revision of
lists of Backward Classes every ten years and in doing so would
consult the Commission.
22. Further, the legislature of the State of Bihar enacted the Bihar
Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991
(Act No.3 of 1992) and under the said Act it declared the lists of
Extremely Backward Classes wherein at Serial No.33, “Tanti-Tantwa”
was shown as one of the castes falling in the Extremely Backward
Classes.
23. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Union of India
has filed an application for impleadment and has made its stand
clear in the said application, which is supported by an affidavit and
is registered as IA No.100468 of 2024. In paragraph 8 of the said
application, it is stated that the Government of Bihar vide letter
dated 05.08.2011 had recommended inclusion of “Tanti-Tantwa”
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 805

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.

in the list of Scheduled Castes as a synonym of ‘Pan, Sawasi,
Panr’. The said proposal of the State was examined as per settled
modalities in consultation with the Registrar General of India (in
short ‘RGI’), who did not support the said proposal vide its comments
dated 24.01.2013. The observations of the RGI were conveyed to
the State Government on 31.01.2013 to review/further justify the
recommendations in the light of the comments made by the RGI. It
further mentions that the response of the State Government in the
matter was awaited. Thus, till date “Tanti-Tantwa” caste has not
been included in the list of Schedule Castes of the State of Bihar
and, as such, its members are not entitled to Scheduled Castes’
status. Paragraph-9 further mentions that the Department had
received references from the Union Public Service Commission
as also the Department of Personnel and Training, Government
of India to show that Members of “Tanti-Tantwa” community,
who were otherwise appearing at Serial No.48 of the Central List
of Other Backward Classes were being issued Scheduled Castes
Certificates in the name of ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’ in view of the State
Government’s Resolution dated 01.07.2015.
24. Paragraph 10 clearly states that under Article 341 of the Constitution
and the Constitution (Schedule Castes) Order, 1950 and its
Amendments, “Tanti-Tantwa” Caste, which does not appear in the
list of Scheduled Castes of Bihar cannot be issued Scheduled Castes
Certificates treating them to be ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’ at Serial No.20
of the list of Scheduled Castes of Bihar. The Ministry had written more
than half a dozen letters right from 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020
requesting the Government of Bihar to issue necessary instructions
to the Authorities empowered to not to issue Scheduled Castes
Certificates to members of “Tanti-Tantwa” in the name of ‘Pan,
Sawasi, Panr’. In paragraph-11, it is stated that the Government
of Bihar informed the Central Ministry that as the Resolution dated
01.07.2015 was challenged before the Patna High Court and the
High Court had upheld its legality vide judgment dated 03.04.2017,
as such, issuance of Scheduled Castes Certificates to the members
of “Tanti Tantwa” and extension of benefits of Scheduled Castes to
them was legally permissible. Paragraph nos.13, 14 and 15 support
the submissions of the appellants in assailing the correctness of the
impugned judgment of the High Court dated 3rd April, 2017. Thus,
the Union of India has fully supported the appellants.
806 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Submissions on behalf of the appellants.
25. Ms. Indira Jai Singh referring to the Constitutional provisions
contained in Articles 366(24) and 341 submitted that the impugned
Notification/ Resolution dated 01.07.2015 cannot stand and needs to
be quashed, as the State Government had no competence power or
Authority to direct the inclusion of “Tanti-Tantwa” in the lists notified
under Article 341. According to her, any amendment or change in
the specified lists of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341
can only by a law enacted by the Parliament. The State has no role
to play in tinkering with the lists notified under Article 341.
26. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the State was
fully aware that it had no authority or competence to amend the list
as it had itself written to the Central Government for inclusion of
“Tanti-Tantwa” in Entry-20 of the list of Scheduled Castes for the
State of Bihar along with ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’. The said request
of the State Government made in the year 2011, was not accepted
in view of the comments made by the RGI in January, 2013 and
the same were duly communicated to the State vide letter dated
31.01.2013. By the said letter, it was also requested that the State
may further review and provide further justification in support of
their request for including “Tanti-Tantwa” in the lists of Scheduled
Castes. The State chose not to give any reply to the same and
instead in a totally mala fide manner in order to illegally extend
benefit to the “Tanti-Tantwa” castes, it issued the Notification dated
01.07.2015 whereby “Tanti-Tantwa” castes were to be treated
as Scheduled Castes and extended all benefits. The State has to
be put to strict proof to explain, as to why, they had directed for
merger of “Tanti-Tantwa” in the lists of Scheduled Castes with
‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’.
27. It is also the submission of Ms. Jai Singh that the Notification
dated 01.07.2015 cannot be severed so as to retain its first part
of deleting/removing “Tanti-Tantwa” from the list of Extremely
Backward Classes notified under the 1992 Act and to quash the
second part only, which directed for merger of “Tanti-Tantwa” with
‘Pan, Sawasi Panr’ at Entry-20 of the Scheduled Castes lists for
the State of Bihar. According to her, if the impugned Notification is
partly quashed and partly upheld, then the caste “Tanti-Tantwa”
would be left nowhere and would not be entitled to any reservation
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 807

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.

or benefit either as Extremely Backward Class or as Scheduled
Caste. She, thus, submitted that the impugned notification is non-
severable and deserves to be quashed as a whole.
28. She has further submitted that request of the State of Bihar as also
the Intervenors to continue to extend the benefits already granted
during this period to the members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste,
should not be accepted. According to her, the exercise by the State
of issuing the Notification dated 01.07.2015 was clearly mala fide and
deliberate mischief on its part. The continous issuance of Scheduled
Castes Certificates to the members of “Tanti-Tantwa” community
despite repeated directions by the Central Government not to issue
such certificates clearly reflects the defiance of the State Government
not to correct itself rather continue with impunity to issue certificates
and treat them as Scheduled Caste.
29. In the process of issuing such certificates and extending benefits of
Scheduled Castes, the State has deprived the genuine members of
the Scheduled Castes community covered under the lists published
under Article 341, which should be restored back to the Scheduled
Caste community. She also referred to an order dated 22.11.2021
passed by this Court in the appeal filed by Ashish Rajak, wherein
this Court had clearly provided that all appointments are subject to
the outcome of these proceedings.
30. She further submitted that members of “Tanti-Tantwa”
community may be extended benefits available to them under
the Extremely Backward Classes by the State of Bihar, but under
no circumstances, should such members of “Tanti-Tantwa”
community, who have benefited under the completely illegal
and mala fide exercise of the State, be allowed to continue on a
reserved seat of the Scheduled Caste taking advantage of the
Resolution dated 01.07.2015.
31. She has also very fairly submitted that she would not have any
objection to the State not making any recovery from the beneficiaries
of such illegal appointments and in accommodating such candidates
under the Extremely Backward Class quota/reservation but in no case
should such candidates be allowed to withhold the seats reserved
for the Scheduled Castes which should be forthwith returned to the
Schedule Castes for the benefit of the notified castes only.
808 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

32. On the other hand, Sri Ranjeet Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State of Bihar tried to justify the Resolution
dated 01.07.2015 by urging that the Resolution is only clarificatory
and nothing more; that the statutory and socio historical factors
surrounding the controversy warrant that “Tanti-Tantwa” be
treated as synonymous with ‘Pan, Sawasi’. The State has only
acted on the recommendation of the State Commission for
Extremely Backward Classes dated 02.02.2015 and, as such,
no fault can be found with the resolution of the State. He has
further referred to the following socio historical factors and other
statutory provisions considered by the Commission while making
the recommendation:
"A. In Chapter 11, Para 11.3 of the first report of the
Backward Commission, Personnel Department,
Backward Commission, Pan is mentioned as Tanti.
B. In the 10th Report of 1978-80 of the Bihar Legislative
Assembly for the welfare of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, the committee accepted the report
of Mungeri Lal Aayog in which it was reported that
the persons called Tanti are actually Pan and hence
entitled to benefits granted to the Scheduled Castes.
C. In 1967, a bill was placed before the Parliament, in
which it was proposed in the context of Bihar State
that Pan/Swasi/Tanti/Tatwa should be enlisted in the
Scheduled Castes for the State of Bihar but the same
was not appreciated by the Parliament.
D. The report of Kaka Kalekar Backward Commission
recommended to the State that the caste Tanti/Tatwa
should be incorporated with Pan.
E. The Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand vide its letter No.1107
dated 01.03.2004 on the basis of the report of
Jharkhand Tribal Welfare and Research Institute
requested the Home Ministry, Government of India,
that Tanti/Tatwa and Pan are the same caste and
hence should be considered as a synonym of Pan/
Swasi.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 809

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.

F. In the book “ Tribes and Caste of Bengal” by HH
Rizley, pg. 155, it is mentioned that Pan/Swasi and
Tanti are synonymous and come from the Weaver
community.
G. The synonymity between these castes were further
ascertained by the ethnographic report prepared by
A.N. Sinha Institute, Patna.
H. The social conditions and cultural backgrounds of
these castes are the same, and it is the usual practice
to establish matrimonial relations among them.
I. A similar finding is found in the Central Government
report.
J. The National Backward Commission, now a
Constitutional Body, has also recommended for
deletion of Tanti/Tantwa from the list of Backward
Classes as they are synonymous of Pan/Sawasi.”
33. His further submission is that recommendation made by the State
Commission is binding on the State and Judicial review in such matters
may not be permissible except in an extreme case of perversity or
otherwise. He also referred to the recommendation of the National
Commission for Backward Classes made on 29.03.2022 regarding
synonymity of “Tanti-Tantwa” with ‘Pan, Sawasi’. Lastly, it was
submitted that in the event this Court agrees with the submissions of
the appellants and decides to quash the Resolution dated 01.07.2015,
then the benefits/rights already accrued to the members belonging
to the caste of “Tanti-Tantwa” as Scheduled Castes may not be
affected on the principles of equity and good conscience. Reliance
was placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone 1. In particular,
reliance was placed upon paragraphs 115 & 116 of the said judgment
having a coram of three Hon’ble Judges.
34. Lastly, it was submitted that as the matter is still pending for
consideration before the Union of India based on the recommendations
of the National Commission for Backward Classes dated 29.03.2022,

1 [2020] 11 SCR 597 : (2021) 13 SCC 336
810 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

direction may be issued to Union of India to take a decision within
a fixed timeframe and, in the meantime, the present appeals may
be kept pending.
35. Insofar as the private respondents and other intervenors are
concerned, their submission is akin and in support of the submission
of Mr. Ranjeet Kumar to the effect that all those members of
“Tanti-Tantwa” community, who had derived advantage/benefit of
Scheduled Castes under the Certificates issued to them pursuant to
the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 may not be adversely affected and
may be protected on the principles of equity and good conscience.
36. Having considered the submissions advanced, we have no
hesitation in holding that the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 was
patently illegal, erroneous as the State Government had no
competence/authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled
Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution. The
submission of the respondent-State that Resolution dated
01.07.2015 was only clarificatory is not worth considering for
a moment and deserves outright rejection. Whether or not it
was synonymous or integral part of the Entry-20 of the lists of
Schedule Castes, it could not have been added without any law
being made by the Parliament. The State knew very well that it
had no authority and had accordingly forwarded its request to
the Union of India in the year 2011. The said request was not
accepted and returned for further comments/justification/review.
Ignoring the same, the State proceeded to issue the Circular dated
01.07.2015. The State may be justified in deleting “Tanti-Tantwa”
from the Extremely Backward Classes list on the recommendation
of the State Backward Commission, but beyond that to merge
“Tanti-Tantwa” with ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’ under Entry 20 of the
list of Scheduled Castes was nothing short of mala fide exercise
for whatever good, bad or indifferent reasons, the State may
have thought at that moment. Whether synonymous or not, any
inclusion or exclusion of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group
within the castes, races or tribes has to be, by law made by the
Parliament, and not by any other mode or manner.
37. The submission that the recommendation of the Commission for
Extremely Backward Classes was binding on the State, is not a
question to be determined here, inasmuch as, even if we accept
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 811

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v.
The State of Bihar & Ors.

the submission, such recommendation could relate only to the
Extremely Backward Classes. Whether or not to include or exclude
any caste in the list of Extremely Backward Class would be within
the domain of the Commission. The Commission would have no
jurisdiction to make recommendation with respect to any caste
being included in the Scheduled Castes lists and, even if it makes
such a recommendation, right or wrong, the State has no authority
to proceed to implement the same when it was fully aware that the
Constitution does not permit it to do so. The Provisions of Article 341
sub-Clause 1 and sub-Clause 2 are very clear and discrete. There
is no ambiguity or vagueness otherwise requiring any interpretation
other than what is mentioned therein. The State of Bihar has tried
to read something in order to suit its own ends for whatever reason,
we are not commenting on the same.
38. The High Court fell in serious error in upholding the said Notification
on a completely wrong premise without referring to Article 341 of
the Constitution.
39. Now comes the question with regard to protecting those Members of
“Tanti-Tantwa” community who were extended benefit of Scheduled
Castes pursuant to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015. In the present
case, the action of the State is found to be mala fide and de hors
the constitutional provisions. The State cannot be pardoned for the
mischief done by it. Depriving the members of the Scheduled Castes
covered by the lists under Article 341 of the Constitution is a serious
issue. Any person not deserving and not covered by such list if
extended such benefit for deliberate and mischievous reasons by the
State, cannot take away the benefit of the members of the Scheduled
Castes. Such appointments would under law on the findings recorded
would be liable to be set aside. However, as we have found fault
with the conduct of the State and not of any individual member of
the “Tanti-Tantwa” community, we do not wish to direct that their
services may be terminated or that recovery may be made for illegal
appointments or withdrawal of other benefits which may have been
extended. We are of the view that all such posts of the Scheduled
Castes reserved quota which have been extended to the members
of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community appointed subsequent to the
Resolution dated 01.07.2015 be returned to the Scheduled Castes
Quota and all such members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community, who
have been extended such benefit may be accommodated under their
812 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

original category of Extremely Backward Classes, for which the State
may take appropriate measures.
40. Accordingly, the Appeals succeed and are allowed.
41. The impugned Resolution dated 01.07.2015 is, hereby, quashed.
42. It is further directed that such posts of the Scheduled Castes Quota
which had been filled up by members of “Tanti-Tantwa” community
availing benefit on the basis of Resolution dated 01.07.2015 may
be returned to the Scheduled Castes category and such candidates
of “Tanti-Tantwa” community be accommodated by the State in
their original category of Extremely Backward Classes by taking
appropriate measures.
43. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals Allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain