Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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.

Latest Legal News