NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 528) - (Supreme Court) (15 Jul 2024)

State Government had no authority to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution of India

MANU/SC/0622/2024

Constitution

The present appeal arises out of the Patna High Court Division Bench judgment where the court upheld the resolution dated 1st July, 2015 of the State government allowing the merger of the Tanti-Tantwa community with the caste 'Pan, Sawasi' mentioned at Entry 20 in the Schedule Caste list so that the benefits available to Schedule Castes could be extended to such persons.

The challenge was mainly on the ground that the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to add a caste or sub-caste to any entry in the Scheduled Castes list notified under the Presidential Order under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Once the list under the Presidential Order is published, thereafter, any amendment, addition, deletion to the said list can be made only by law enacted by Parliament and not otherwise.

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State defended its move by arguing that the State Government's Resolution dated 01.07.2015 (2015 Resolution) was only clarificatory and that, going by socio-historical factors, both the “Tanti-Tantwa” be treated as synonymous with 'Pan, Sawasi' and the State has only acted on the recommendation of the State Commission for Extremely Backward Classes. However, the Court rejected this stance and observed that 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 patently illegal, erroneous as the State Government had no competence/ authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution.

Also, Court expressed that the individual member of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community, who had secured jobs through the Scheduled Caste (SC) quota after the passage of the 2015 resolution shall not be terminated but all such posts of the Scheduled Castes reserved quota which have been extended to the members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community be returned to the Scheduled Castes Quota and all such members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community, who have been extended such benefit may be accommodated under their original category of Extremely Backward Classes.

Tags : TANTI-TANTWA COMMUNITY   SCHEDULED CASTES   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved