Courts Must Not Act as Subject Experts: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Challenge to PGT Chemistry Answer Key Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction Must Be Raised at the Earliest: Orissa High Court Dismisses Wife's Plea Against Jurisdiction Tenant Cannot Retain Possession Without Paying Rent: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Eviction for Non-Payment Section 197 CrPC | Official Duty and Excessive Force Are Not Mutually Exclusive When Assessing Prosecution Sanction: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Sub-Inspector Police Cannot Meddle in Religious Disputes Without Law and Order Concerns: Karnataka High Court Orders Inquiry Against Inspector for Interference in Mutt Property Dispute Taxpayer Cannot Be Denied Compensation for Unauthorized Retention of Funds: Gujarat High Court Orders Interest on Delayed Refund Settlement Reached in Conciliation Has the Force of an Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea for Arbitration Calcutta High Court Slams Eastern Coalfields Limited, Orders Immediate Employment for Deceased Worker’s Widow Suit for Declaration That No Marriage Exists is Maintainable: Bombay High Court Rejects Plea to Dismiss Negative Declaration Claim Tearing Pages of a Religious Book in a Live Debate is a Prima Facie Malicious Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR Unexplained Delay, Contradictory Testimony, and Lack of Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain a Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case Weaponizing Criminal Law in Matrimonial Disputes is Abuse of Process: Supreme Court Quashed Complaint Stamp Duty Exemption Applies When Property Transfer Is Part of Court-Ordered Divorce Settlement: Supreme Court A Court Cannot Deny Just Maintenance Merely Because the Applicant Claimed Less: Orissa High Court Upholds ₹10,000 Monthly Support for Elderly Wife Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Land Acquisition Challenge, Cites "Delay and Laches" as Key Factors Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification Proved Beyond Doubt: Kerala High Court Affirms Conviction in Bribery Case Violation of Decree Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Application Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC Ensuring Teacher Attendance Through Technology is Not Arbitrary, But Privacy of Female Teachers Must Be Protected: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Circular Once a Mortgage is Permitted, Auction Sale Needs No Further NOC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Delay Defeats Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition for Appointment as PCS (Judicial) After 16-Year Delay Minor Signature Differences Due to Age and Health Do Not Void Will if Testamentary Capacity Established: Kerala High Court Criminal Investigation Cannot Be Stalled on Grounds of Political Conspiracy Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Refused to Quash FIR Against MLA Munirathna Family Courts Must Prioritize Justice Over Technicalities" – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Wife’s Right to Defend Divorce Case Fraud Vitiates Everything—Sale of Debuttar Property by Sole Shebait Cannot Stand: Calcutta High Court Reassessment Cannot Be Used to Reopen Settled Issues Without New Material – Bombay High Court Quashes ₹542 Crore Tax Demand on Tata Communications Repeated FIRs Against Multiple Accused Raise Serious Questions on Motive: Allahabad High Court Orders CBI Inquiry Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud

Supreme Court Strikes Down Bihar Government’s Inclusion of "Tanti-Tantwa" in Scheduled Castes List

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The State has no authority to alter the lists of Scheduled Castes," says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has quashed the Bihar government's notification merging the "Tanti-Tantwa" caste with the "Pan/Sawasi" in the Scheduled Castes list, ruling that only the Parliament has the authority to make such changes. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized the constitutional provisions under Article 341, which restricts states from altering the Presidential Order's Scheduled Castes list.

The appeals stemmed from a 2017 judgment by the Patna High Court, which upheld a Bihar government notification dated July 1, 2015. This notification sought to delete "Tanti-Tantwa" from the list of Extremely Backward Classes and merge it with the Scheduled Castes list under "Pan/Sawasi." The appellants challenged this on the grounds that such an amendment could only be made by Parliament, not the state government.

The Supreme Court outlined that Article 341 of the Constitution empowers only the President of India, in consultation with the respective state governor, to specify the castes, races, or tribes for Scheduled Castes status. Furthermore, any amendments to this list can only be made by Parliament. Justice Vikram Nath stated, "Neither the Central Government nor the President can make any amendments or changes to the notification issued under Clause-1 specifying the castes in relation to the states or Union territory."

The court criticized the Bihar government’s notification as a mala fide exercise of power, noting that it had previously requested the Central Government to include "Tanti-Tantwa" in the Scheduled Castes list in 2011, which was rejected based on the Registrar General of India's comments. Despite this, the state proceeded with the 2015 notification. The court found the state’s actions as a deliberate mischief to extend benefits to "Tanti-Tantwa" under the Scheduled Castes category illegally.

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized the injustice done to the genuine Scheduled Castes members due to the state’s mischief. The judgment noted, "Depriving the members of the Scheduled Castes covered by the lists under Article 341 of the Constitution is a serious issue."

The court reiterated that the inclusion or exclusion of any caste, race, or tribe in the Scheduled Castes list must be through parliamentary law. The bench highlighted, "Whether synonymous or not, any inclusion or exclusion of any caste, race, or tribe or part of or group within the castes, races or tribes has to be, by law made by the Parliament, and not by any other mode or manner."

Justice Vikram Nath remarked, "The State may be justified in deleting 'Tanti-Tantwa' from the Extremely Backward Classes list on the recommendation of the State Backward Commission, but beyond that to merge 'Tanti-Tantwa' with 'Pan, Sawasi, Panr' under Entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes was nothing short of mala fide exercise."

The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the strict constitutional boundaries governing the alteration of Scheduled Castes lists. By quashing the Bihar government’s notification, the court reinforced the Parliament's exclusive authority in such matters, ensuring the protection of genuine Scheduled Castes members' rights. The judgment mandates the return of posts filled by "Tanti-Tantwa" members to the Scheduled Castes quota and accommodates these members under their original category of Extremely Backward Classes, highlighting a balanced approach to rectifying the state’s overreach.

 

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Similar News