ORDER

In W.P. No. 30440/2013:

The petitioners assert that they belong to the Korama and Koracha communities, which are classified as Scheduled Castes in the Presidential Notification of 1950.

In W.P. No. 29941/2013:

2. The petitioner, appearing as a party-in-person, claims to belong to the Bhovi community, which is also classified as a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential Notification of 1950.

3. The Karnataka Rajya Aspurshya Mahasabha, Gulbarga, filed a writ petition before this Court seeking the deletion of these castes from the Scheduled Caste list, alleging that they have not historically suffered from the stigma of untouchability. 4. This Court, in WP No. 18243/2012 (dated 23.8.2012), recorded a finding based on the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2005 SC 162), determining that writs cannot be issued regarding the addition or deletion of castes from the Presidential Notification of 1950. Additionally, the petitioner's request only sought the disposal of their representation to the Government/National Commission for Scheduled Castes, without transgressing the dicta in E.V. Chinnaiah. Consequently, this Court issued orders for the disposal of the petitioner's representation.

5. Following the direction of this Court to consider the petitioner's representation, respondent No.1 issued a public notice dated 1.7.2013, published in The Hindu daily newspaper, inviting associations, organizations, or individuals of the aforementioned castes/sub-castes/communities to appear before the Commission regarding the exclusion or inclusion of these castes/sub- castes/synonyms in the Central List of Scheduled Castes for the State of Karnataka. These petitions were filed in response to the notice.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No.1 lacks the authority and jurisdiction to include or exclude castes from the Scheduled Caste list specified in the Presidential Notification of 1950, as this is the exclusive domain of Parliament under sub-clause (2) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India.

7. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

i) Kum. K.S. Jayashree & Anr. v. State of Kerala &

Anr. (AIR 1976 SC 2381)

ii) Nithyananda Sharma & Anr. v. State of Bihar &

Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 2306)

iii) State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors. (AIR 2001 SC 393)

iv) E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

(AIR 2005 SC 162)

v) Shree Surath Valsad Jilla KMG Parishad v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 2056)

8. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and No.2 argues that the initial list of Scheduled Castes for a State or Union Territory is determined by a notified order of the President. Any subsequent modifications can only be made by an Act of Parliament as per clause (2) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India.

9. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 asserts that the National Commission is tasked with collecting information from the public and subsequently submitting a report to determine whether the said castes suffer from any stigma.

10. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

11. Article 341 of the Constitution of India states that the President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, may specify castes, races, or tribes, or parts or groups within them, that shall be deemed Scheduled Castes in relation to that State by public notification.

12. Clause (2) of Article 341 stipulates that Parliament may, by law, include or exclude castes, races, or tribes from the list specified in a notification issued under clause (1). A notification issued under clause (1) cannot be varied by any subsequent notification except by an Act of Parliament.

13. A reading of Article 341 of the Constitution of India clearly indicates that only Parliament has the authority to include or exclude castes from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification under clause (1). The Supreme Court, in the case of