SC/ST status is state-specific, cannot be carried across states: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court held that Binoy Krishna Das could not automatically be treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha. His Bhuiya caste was recognised as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand, but that status did not travel with him. The court said Odisha’s classifications apply to communities identified for that state.

Das owned land in Mayurbhanj and wanted to sell it. The district registrar-cum-ADM treated him as an Odisha ST because Bhuiya appears in Odisha’s ST list. On that basis, the officer demanded prior permission under Regulation 2 of 1956. The High Court rejected this reasoning because Das was not notified as either an SC or ST in Odisha.

The court quashed the ADM’s April 23 letter. It directed the sub-registrar-cum-tehsildar at Kuliana to register the sale deed. The ruling reinforces that state-specific notifications cannot be used to convert a person’s classification when moving between states.

Scheduled Castes are communities recognised as having faced historical caste-based disadvantage, while Scheduled Tribes are constitutionally recognised tribal communities. Their status can connect to protections and safeguards in areas such as education, public employment, political representation, and land laws. The exact protections depend on the applicable law.

Presidential notifications are formal constitutional lists identifying which communities are SCs or STs in a particular state or union territory. Parliament can later change these lists. In this case, Bhuiya appeared as an SC in Jharkhand and as an ST in Odisha, but those entries were not interchangeable.

The important point is that a community’s listing is not automatically nationwide. A person may hold a recognised status in the state named in the notification, but migration does not itself create the same status elsewhere. The High Court relied on this state-specific structure when deciding Das’s case.

SC and ST classifications are state-specific because communities may experience different social and economic conditions in different parts of India. A caste might face disadvantage in one state but not in the same way elsewhere. The constitutional listing process therefore considers the community’s situation in the relevant state.

The High Court explained that Presidential notifications are prepared by looking at a caste or tribe’s socio-economic development vis-à-vis that state. In Das’s case, Bhuiya was listed as an SC in Jharkhand and as an ST in Odisha. However, the court said neither entry could simply be transferred across the state boundary.

This approach means that a classification can differ without creating an automatic contradiction. It also limits people from carrying SC or ST status into another state. Das’s case shows why officials must check the notification applicable to the state where a benefit, protection, or land restriction is being claimed.

There are 36 Indian jurisdictions with separate official lists identifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: 28 states and 8 union territories. The lists are maintained separately because constitutional recognition depends on the relevant state or union territory, rather than applying identically across India.

That structure explains the dispute involving Das. Bhuiya was recognised as an SC in Jharkhand, while the district authority pointed to Bhuiya’s inclusion in Odisha’s ST list. The High Court said the Odisha entry could not automatically classify a person from Jharkhand as an Odisha ST.

The number of jurisdictions does not mean every community appears on every list. Each list contains its own notified communities and applies within its specified territory. Consequently, people moving between jurisdictions must have their status assessed under the notification for the place involved. The article itself does not provide this national count; it establishes the state-specific principle.

Das’s sale deed was not accepted by the sub-registrar at Kuliana after he sold 0.14 acres in Mayurbhanj. The district registrar-cum-ADM said Das was Bhuiya, treated as an ST in Odisha. Because the buyer belonged to an SC community rather than an ST community, the officer demanded prior permission before the land could be sold.

The demand relied on Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956, which restricts certain transfers of land belonging to Scheduled Tribes. Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act also concerns transfers of tribal land to non-tribal people. Das challenged the decision, arguing that his Jharkhand SC status could not become Odisha ST status.

The High Court accepted that argument. It quashed the ADM’s April 23 letter and directed the sub-registrar-cum-tehsildar, Kuliana, to register the sale deed. The ruling removed the permission barrier created by the incorrect classification.

The High Court found that Odisha’s tribal-land restrictions depended on the seller actually being a Scheduled Tribe member in Odisha. Das did not meet that condition. His Bhuiya caste was notified as an SC in Jharkhand, but it was not notified as an SC in Odisha.

The district registrar-cum-ADM nevertheless treated him as an Odisha ST because Bhuiya appeared in Odisha’s ST list. The court rejected that step. It said a person migrating from one state does not carry the SC or ST status recognised in the state of origin, and an Odisha entry cannot automatically cover someone classified in Jharkhand.

Because Das could not be treated as an ST in Odisha, Regulation 2 of 1956 did not apply to his land sale. The court therefore quashed the permission letter and directed registration. The decision prevents a state-specific classification from being used selectively to impose a land-transfer restriction.

India’s constitutional system uses Presidential notifications to identify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for each state or union territory. These notifications consider the socio-economic development and circumstances of communities in that particular territory. Parliament can amend the notified lists. Recognition is therefore formal, territorial, and legally specific.

The article illustrates this through Bhuiya. The caste was notified as an SC in Jharkhand, while it appeared in Odisha’s ST list. The High Court said the two entries could not be merged. Das could not claim SC status in Odisha, but officials also could not automatically treat him as an ST there.

State-linked protections reflect the possibility that the same community may face different conditions in different regions. This matters for benefits, official recognition, and laws restricting land transfers. The ruling requires authorities to apply the correct notification and prevents migration alone from changing a person’s constitutional classification.