RAIPUR: Chhattisgarh high court has held that individuals migrating from one state to another cannot carry their caste status along, even if they are recognised as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in both states. The ruling came from Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, who highlighted that the recognition of a caste as an ST or OBC is directly related to the social, economic, and educational backwardness faced by that caste in its home state, which may not necessarily exist in the state to which an individual migrates.
The case involved petitioners who had migrated from Rajasthan and claimed ST status in Chhattisgarh. However, HC upheld the findings of the High-Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, which determined that the petitioners were from the ‘Nayak’ community and not the ‘Bheel‘ tribe.
The committee’s investigation revealed that the petitioners had provided forged documents to claim ST status in Chhattisgarh. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the committee’s order to cancel the caste certificate and benefits granted to the petitioners under the reserved category. “Recognition of a caste in a particular state is contingent upon the specific socio-economic and educational conditions in that state. Therefore, migration does not entitle individuals to the same benefits of reservation in the new state unless similar conditions of backwardness are proven,” the HC said.
The case involved petitioners who had migrated from Rajasthan and claimed ST status in Chhattisgarh. However, HC upheld the findings of the High-Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, which determined that the petitioners were from the ‘Nayak’ community and not the ‘Bheel‘ tribe.
The committee’s investigation revealed that the petitioners had provided forged documents to claim ST status in Chhattisgarh. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the committee’s order to cancel the caste certificate and benefits granted to the petitioners under the reserved category. “Recognition of a caste in a particular state is contingent upon the specific socio-economic and educational conditions in that state. Therefore, migration does not entitle individuals to the same benefits of reservation in the new state unless similar conditions of backwardness are proven,” the HC said.