Introduction:

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court navigates the intricate constitutional terrain surrounding the migration of individuals with Scheduled Tribe (ST) status from one state to another. Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih clarify that the benefits associated with ST status cannot be claimed in a new state or Union Territory without a Presidential notification, as mandated by Article 342 of the Indian Constitution. The case, involving the Chandigarh Housing Board and Tarsem Lal, delves into the complexities of domicile requirements and the necessity of adherence to constitutional provisions.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant, Chandigarh Housing Board, had set specific criteria, including domicile requirements, for house allotment applications. Tarsem Lal, a resident of Chandigarh for two decades but originally from Rajasthan and belonging to ST, challenged the denial of house allotment. The core argument revolved around whether Lal could claim ST benefits in Chandigarh without a Presidential notification for the specific tribal community.

On the opposing side, Lal contended that his ST status, recognized in his state of origin, should grant him the same benefits in Chandigarh. The lower courts ruled in his favor, emphasizing his long-term residency. However, the Supreme Court’s decision would shape the legal landscape surrounding migration and constitutional rights.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, citing precedent cases like Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College and Action Committee vs. Union of India, underscored that migration does not confer special rights if the new state lacks corresponding provisions. The Justices emphasized the need for a Presidential notification under Article 342 for extending benefits to any tribal community in a specific state or Union Territory.

The Court found the advertisement for house allotment, which included both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was issued without strict compliance with Article 342. Consequently, the Court deemed the advertisement erroneously issued, setting aside the lower court’s judgment. The absence of a Presidential Order rendered the benefits inapplicable.