Orissa High Court Rules SC/ST Status Cannot Be Carried Across State Borders

The Orissa High Court has ruled that Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) classifications are specific to individual states and cannot automatically be transferred when a person moves from one state to another. The court observed that caste and tribal classifications under Presidential notifications are based on the socio-economic conditions of communities within the respective states.

New rules on animal testing must take India forward, not backwards: Maneka Gandhi Officials maintain the changes seek to simplify approvals for research institutions, pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. Updated on: Oct 26, 2026, 14:54:47 IST By Jasjeev Gandhiok Prefer HTPrefer HT Prefer HT on Google Share The Centre’s draft rules governing animal experimentation have triggered concerns among animal rights groups, which say the changes could weaken independent oversight and make it easier for laboratories to conduct experiments on animals. However, officials maintain the changes seek to simplify approvals for research institutions, pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. Former Union minister Maneka Gandhi. Former Union minister Maneka Gandhi. HT speaks to animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi, a long-time campaigner against animal experimentation. Edited excerpts: A major change to animal experimentation, proposed in the draft, is that mild and moderate experiments could be approved by an institution’s own ethics committee rather than going to the central regulator. In practical terms, what does this change mean for an animal inside a laboratory? Does it make it easier for more animals to be experimented on? It means the animal loses the one independent pair of eyes that was looking at its fate. Today, experiments on animals larger than a rat go to the central regulator, and there is at least someone outside the building asking whether this experiment is necessary at all. Under the draft, the people who want to do the experiment, their colleagues and their department heads will be the ones approving it. And it is the institution itself, through its own veterinarian, that decides whether the experiment is mild or moderate in the first place. No institution has ever turned down its own funding. So yes, it will make it easier, and it will make it faster, and that means more animals. Mild and moderate are also the bulk of experiments, so we are effectively handing over most of animal experimentation in India to self regulation. The draft classifies experiments as mild, moderate, severe and non-recovery. Is there a concern that the institution conducting the research will effectively decide how severe the experiment is. Does this leave a grey area? It isn’t grey, it is completely black. Under this draft, the institution that wants to do the experiment is also the one that decides which category it falls into. That decision matters enormously, because if the experiment is classified as mild or moderate, the institution’s own committee approves it and it never goes to the central regulator. Only severe and non-recovery experiments on larger animals go outside. So the same people who want the experiment approved are deciding whether anyone independent will ever examine it. That is a clear conflict of interest, and it will push experiments towards the lower categories. Starving a rat for a day is called mild. Keeping a social animal alone in a cage is mild. Starving it for two days, or putting it through distress it cannot escape, is moderate. So is testing herbal products, testing established drugs, and anything described as having “known and reversible effects,” which could mean almost anything. This is not a scientific list. It is the most common commercial work. The draft also creates exceptions and allows laboratories to use animals from open markets, unregistered sources, and in certain circumstances, stray, feral, wild and protected animals. What is the biggest risk that this may create for animals in practice? Could community dogs, lost pets or animals taken from the wild find their way into laboratories? The biggest risk is that nobody will know where an animal came from. The whole point of registered breeders was traceability. Once you allow open markets and unregistered sources for cattle, goats, birds and fish, you create a demand, and in this country demand is met very quickly by people who will pick up anything. Strays and wild animals can be used if a “competent authority” permits it, and the draft never says who that is. Community dogs, someone’s lost pet, birds from illegal markets, all of it can find its way into a laboratory. These exceptions should be removed completely. If a lab cannot get an animal from a registered source, it should not be doing that experiment. The draft formally incorporates the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement, but critics say these safeguards become weaker if institutions themselves are approving experiments. Do you believe India should now be moving towards replacing animal experiments altogether, particularly when the health ministry has already allowed certain drug testing through non-animal methods? What should the rules do differently? Yes, and we are not starting from zero. The health ministry has already amended the drug rules to accept non-animal methods. The world is moving this way because these methods are often more predictive for humans than a mouse ever was. Writing replacement, reduction and refinement into the rules means nothing if the person checking compliance is the institution itself. The rules should make it mandatory to show that no validated alternative exists before an animal is used, set up a national body to validate and promote alternatives, put money into them, and set timelines to phase out animal use in areas where alternatives are already available. A rule that only mentions replacement as a principle is decoration. You have worked on animal experimentation regulation for decades. What specific changes would you want the government to make to this draft? I don’t think this draft can be fixed. There is hardly a provision in it that doesn’t need changing, and when everything needs to change, it is better to start again. So the draft should be put aside and written afresh, this time with independent scientists, animal welfare organisations and legal experts at the table. The new rules must take India forward, not backwards. Animals already have certain protections under the law which cannot be taken away. New should be building on them.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response to Challenge Against Chhattisgarh Anti-Conversion Law

Lula’s Brazil Re-Election: What It Means for India’s Trade, Rare Earths and Global South Push

The ruling came while hearing a petition filed by Binoy Krishna Das, a resident of Jharkhand who lives in Baripada town in Odisha’s Mayurbhanj district for his trading business. The court quashed an administrative order that required him to obtain prior permission before selling his land, after authorities classified his caste as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that a person belonging to a caste recognised as a Scheduled Caste in one state cannot automatically claim the same status in another state. Equally, the person cannot automatically be treated as a Scheduled Tribe merely because the caste appears in the ST list of the state to which they have moved.

Dispute Over Land Sale in Odisha

The case arose after Das sold 0.14 acres of land in Mayurbhanj district to a buyer belonging to a Scheduled Caste community for ₹10 lakh. The sale deed was executed before the sub-registrar at Kuliana in March 2026.

However, the registration was not accepted, prompting Das to approach the district registrar-cum-additional district magistrate (ADM) of Mayurbhanj.

In a letter dated April 23, the district registrar informed Das that his caste, Bhuiya, was classified as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha. Since the buyer did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe, the authority said prior permission was necessary under Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956.

The regulation places restrictions on certain transfers of land belonging to Scheduled Tribe members. Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act also addresses restrictions on the transfer of land by ST members to non-tribal persons.

Challenging the administrative decision, Das argued that his caste was recognised as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand and that his classification could not be converted into Scheduled Tribe status in Odisha. He maintained that the restrictions governing the transfer of tribal land should therefore not apply to him.

Court Explains State-Specific Caste Classifications

Upholding Das’s argument, Justice Mishra emphasised that Presidential notifications listing Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are prepared with reference to the socio-economic conditions of communities in individual states.

The court noted that the circumstances of a particular caste or tribe may differ from one state to another. Consequently, recognition under one state’s list does not automatically establish the same legal status elsewhere.

The judge observed that Bhuiya was not notified as a Scheduled Caste in Odisha. However, this did not mean that Das could automatically be classified as a Scheduled Tribe in the state simply because Bhuiya appeared in Odisha’s ST list.

The court stressed that the entry in the Presidential notification was specific to Odisha and did not extend to a person belonging to the Bhuiya caste in Jharkhand, where the community was recognised as a Scheduled Caste.

In its observations, the High Court questioned the administrative authority’s decision to require permission under Regulation 2 of 1956 when Das could not automatically be treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha.

High Court Orders Registration of Sale Deed

Finding that the district registrar-cum-ADM had overlooked the distinction between state-specific caste classifications, the High Court quashed the authority’s letter dated April 23.

The court also directed the sub-registrar-cum-tehsildar at Kuliana to register the sale deed.

The ruling underscores the importance of applying caste and tribal classifications in accordance with the relevant Presidential notifications for each state. It also clarifies that a community’s inclusion in one state’s Scheduled Caste list and another state’s Scheduled Tribe list does not, by itself, determine an individual’s legal classification across state borders.

The judgment arose from a dispute over land registration but addresses a broader legal question concerning migration, caste recognition and the application of restrictions on land transfers involving Scheduled Tribe members.

By setting aside the administrative order, the High Court reaffirmed that authorities must establish the applicable legal classification before imposing restrictions intended to protect tribal land.