The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste listed in a particular state would not be entitled to quota benefits if he migrates to another state for employment or education.

The apex court ruling came in the course of examining the question “whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular state is entitled or not to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidates in employment in any other state”.

In a majority judgment, a Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, “A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’ cannot claim the same status in another state on the basis that he is declared a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’.”

The enabling provision under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is to “provide for reservation to classes or categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes enumerated in the Presidential orders for a particular state or territory within the geographical area of that state and not beyond.”

However, it said, “… so far as the National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned, the pan- India reservation rule in force is in accord with the constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the states/union territories.”

The bench also addressed the question whether the states on their own could add to the Presidential list of SCs/STs for particular states.

Speaking for the majority, including Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and S Abdul Nazeer, Justice Gogoi said: “… that the expression “in relation to that state or Union Territory” and “for the purpose of this Constitution” used in Articles 341 and 342 would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to geographical territories of a state/UT in respect of which the list of SC/ST have been notified by Presidential orders issued from time to time.”

SC pulls up Centre: Upset at the Centre’s failure to provide details about the criminal cases pending against politicians in various courts across the country, the Supreme Court on Thursday once again sought the information.

It had also sought the status of trial in 1,581 cases involving elected representatives and the outcomes where the trials have been concluded.

A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha and K M Joseph said the “Union of India is unprepared. We express anguish as it had not given the information sought by the court”. “The government is compelling us to pass certain orders which we do not want to at this stage,” the bench said, posting the matter for further hearing after one week.

The affidavit filed by the government did not have any specific details regarding the number of cases pending in each fasttrack court already set up.

The apex court is hearing a PIL by an advocate and BJP leader Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay seeking lifetime ban on convicted lawmakers and setting up of special courts for trying lawmakers accused of criminal offences.

The apex court has sought details on how many criminal cases have ended in acquittal or conviction of MPs and MLAs, as the case may be, while also calling for details of the fresh criminal cases filed against politicians and sitting lawmakers since 2014, their stage of trial and the outcome if the trial has concluded.