SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Gazette Copy
AI highlight Precision Paragraph Copy AI Assistant AI Assistant Add to Editor Bookmak Share Document Go to Top Go to Bottom Zoom In Zoom Out Print Download PDF Court Copy Open In App

CASTE DISABILITIES REMOVAL ACT, 1850

Read full Act
S.1 Law or usage which inflicts forfeiture of, or affects, rights on change of religion or loss of caste to cease to be enforced

       So much of any law or usage now in force within [ Substituted by Act 3 of 1951, Section 3 and Schedule for ''the territories subject to the Government of the East India Company'.][India ] as inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property, or may be held in any way to impair or affect any right of inheritance, by reason of his or her renouncing, or having been excluded from the communion of, any religion , or being deprived of caste, shall cease to be enforced as law [Substitue by Section 3 and Schedule, Substitue by Section 3, for ''in the Courts of the East India Company, and in the Courts established by Royal Charter within the said territories ''.][ in any court ].
       [ Added by Section 3 and Schedule, Substitue by Section 3,]


Legal Comments

  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - An Act passed in British India under East India Company rule to abolish laws and customs that inflicted forfeiture of rights or property, or affected inheritance, by reason of change of religion or loss of caste. [Source: Kulada Prasad Pandey VS Haripada Chatterjee - 1912 0 Supreme(Cal) 146]
  • "Section 1" - Section 1 of the Act provides that so much of any law or usage now in force within India as inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property, or may be held in any way to impair or affect any right of inheritance, by reason of his or her renouncing, or having excluded from the communion of, any religion, or being deprived of caste, shall cease to be enforced as law in any Court. [Source: K. Sivanandam VS Maragathammal - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2266]
  • "Renunciation of religion" - The Act protects a person who has renounced his or her religion, ensuring that such renunciation does not result in forfeiture of property rights or impairment of inheritance. [Source: Kulada Prosad Pandey VS Haripada Chattopadhyaya - 1912 0 Supreme(Cal) 425]
  • "Exclusion from communion" - The Act covers those who have been excluded from the communion of any religion, preventing loss of property rights due to such exclusion. [Source: Kulada Prosad Pandey VS Haripada Chattopadhyaya - 1912 0 Supreme(Cal) 425]
  • "Deprivation of caste" - The Act ensures that deprivation of caste does not lead to forfeiture of property rights or impairment of inheritance. [Source: Kulada Prosad Pandey VS Haripada Chattopadhyaya - 1912 0 Supreme(Cal) 425]
  • "Retrospective operation" - The Act does not have retrospective operation; it does not defeat vested rights, particularly in cases of conversion and forfeiture of property under Hindu Law. [Source: RANGANATHA MALLAN VS KARTHYAYANI - 1965 0 Supreme(Ker) 349]
  • "Conversion and inheritance" - Conversion from Hinduism to another religion does not disqualify the convert from inheriting property from Hindu relatives, as the Act removes the stigma of inheritance loss due to conversion. [Source: K. Sivanandam VS Maragathammal - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2266]
  • "Hindu widow's right" - A Hindu widow does not forfeit her right to inherit her deceased husband's estate by committing adultery, unless the act results in loss of caste, and the Act protects her rights in such cases. [Source: Parbutty Bewah VS Woomatara Dabee - 1875 0 Supreme(Cal) 22]
  • "Hindu daughter's right" - A Hindu daughter can inherit from her father who converted to another religion, as the Act protects the convert's right to inherit property from Hindu relatives. [Source: Sundarammal VS Ameenal - 1926 0 Supreme(Mad) 356]
  • "Adoption by outcast son" - The Act does not remove the caste disability in adoption, as the outcast son does not retain the religious capacity to perform the obsequial rites, and adoption during the lifetime of a male issue remains prohibited. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Special Marriage Act" - The Act is relevant for those who marry under the Special Marriage Act and declare that they do not profess Hindu religion, as it protects their right to inherit ancestral property. [Source: Commissioner Of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Madhya Bharat VS Pratap Chand Co. , British Motor Car Co. Ltd. , New Delhi - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 104]
  • "Christian Succession Act" - The Act is not affected by the Christian Succession Act, and the customary law followed by the Nadars in Travancore State regarding inheritance by Christian converts was disrupted by the latter Act. [Source: Mettilbai VS Balammal - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2617]
  • "Indian Succession Act" - Under the Indian Succession Act, a Hindu relation can inherit the property of a Christian deceased, and the religion of the claimant is irrelevant for succession claims under this Act. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Mahomadan Law" - A Hindu cannot succeed to the estate of a Mahomadan under Mahomadan Law, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act does not assist in such cases unless the person renounced his religion. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Property rights on conversion" - The convert retains their interest in the ancestral property, but may be liable for pre-conversion debts, and the joint Hindu family is dissolved upon conversion. [Source: Kulada Prasad Pandey VS Haripada Chatterjee - 1912 0 Supreme(Cal) 146]
  • "Severance from family" - Conversion to Christianity severs the individual from the joint Hindu family, dissolving the family and its obligations, but the convert retains their property rights. [Source: Kulada Prosad Pandey VS Haripada Chattopadhyaya - 1912 0 Supreme(Cal) 425]
  • "Forfeiture of property" - The Act prevents forfeiture of property rights upon conversion, but does not protect a person who has not renounced his or her religion. [Source: RANGANATHA MALLAN VS KARTHYAYANI - 1965 0 Supreme(Ker) 349]
  • "Legislative intent" - The Act intends to protect the person who renounces his religion from losing any right of property or of succeeding as heir, but does not apply to those who merely change their personal law. [Source: Commissioner Of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Madhya Bharat VS Pratap Chand Co. , British Motor Car Co. Ltd. , New Delhi - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 104]
  • "Repeal of the Act" - The Caste Disabilities Removal Act was repealed on 8th August, 2017, along with nearly 91 other obsolete acts, by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India. [Source: Balchand Jairamdas Lalwant VS Nazneen Khalid Qureshi - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 288]
  • "Constitutional validity" - Laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of caste or class, such as the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, are not ultra vires the Constitution of India and do not contravene Article 14 of the Constitution. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "Right to guardianship" - Conversion to another religion does not deprive a Hindu parent of the right of guardianship or custody of his or her minor child, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act protects such rights. [Source: RAJ KUMAR GUPTA VS BARBARA GUPTA - 1988 0 Supreme(Cal) 299]
  • "Customary law and usage" - The Act covers any law or usage now in force within India, including customary law, and prevents enforcement of customs that deprive a person of his right to claim restitution of conjugal rights or other property rights. [Source: MOHAN LAL VS SHANTI DEVI - 1962 0 Supreme(All) 72]
  • "Privy Council interpretation" - The Privy Council held that the Caste Disabilities Removal Act applies only to protect the actual person who either renounced his religion or had been excluded from the communion of any religion or had been deprived of caste, and does not allow Hindu collaterals to claim inheritance from a Mahomadan convert. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Hindu Succession Act, 1956" - The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act continues to protect converts from forfeiture of inheritance rights under this Act. [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]
  • "Section 26 of Hindu Succession Act" - Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, disqualifies the children of a convert from inheriting the property of their Hindu relatives, unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens. [Source: E. Ramesh VS P. Rajini - 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 1208]
  • "Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act" - Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provides that any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act, including the Caste Disabilities Removal Act. [Source: K. Sivanandam VS Maragathammal - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2266]
  • "Mitar Sen Singh v. Maqbul Hasan Khan" - The Privy Council held that the Caste Disabilities Removal Act does not allow a Hindu convert's descendants to claim inheritance under Hindu law from unconverted relatives, and that the personal law of the convert governs the rights of succession of his children. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain" - The Privy Council held that the Act virtually set aside the provisions of Hindu law which penalize renunciation of religion or exclusion from caste, and that a convert did not forfeit his right on conversion. [Source: RANGANATHA MALLAN VS KARTHYAYANI - 1965 0 Supreme(Ker) 349]
  • "Ananchaperumal Nadar v. Muthiah Nadar" - The Travancore High Court held that the Christian Succession Act abrogated the customary law that allowed Hindu Nadars to inherit from Christian converts, and that the usage was disrupted by the Act. [Source: Mettilbai VS Balammal - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2617]
  • "Shanmughathayee Ammal v. Devasahayam Nadar" - The Full Bench held that the Christian Succession Act did not enlarge the rights of a limited female owner to an absolute estate, and that the customary law of succession for Nadars was affected by the Act. [Source: Mettilbai VS Balammal - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2617]
  • "Abraham v. Abraham" - The principle of severance in Hindu law, as established in Abraham v. Abraham, holds that conversion to Christianity severs the individual from the joint Hindu family. [Source: Kulada Prasad Pandey VS Haripada Chatterjee - 1912 0 Supreme(Cal) 146]
  • "Matungini Gupta v. Ram Rutton Roy" - The court held that Act XV of 1856 applies only to Hindu widows who remarry as Hindus, and not to those who have converted to another religion. [Source: Karnam Chowdappa VS Karnam Narasamma - 1917 0 Supreme(Mad) 402]
  • "Moraram Kolita v. Keri Kolitani" - The Privy Council held that once property is vested in a woman, her subsequent unchastity would not divest her of the estate. [Source: Karnam Chowdappa VS Karnam Narasamma - 1917 0 Supreme(Mad) 402]
  • "Asoke Naidu v. Raymond S. Mulu" - The Calcutta High Court held that Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act does not disqualify a convert, but only the descendants of the convert born after conversion. [Source: E. Ramesh VS P. Rajini - 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 1208]
  • "E. Ramesh v. P. Rajini" - The Madras High Court held that by virtue of Section 1 of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, the conversion of a Hindu to another religion will not disentitle the convert to his right of inheritance to the property. [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]
  • "K. Sivanandam & Anr." - The Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered the conversion under the Hindu Act and also the effect of Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850, and held that a change of religion and loss of caste was at one time considered as grounds for forfeiture of property and exclusion of inheritance, but this has ceased to be the case after the passing of the Act. [Source: Balchand Jairamdas Lalwant VS Nazneen Khalid Qureshi - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 288]
  • "Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan" - The Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court considered the applicability of Hindu Succession Act to a convert and held that the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, removed the stigma of inheriting property in case of conversion to another religion. [Source: Balchand Jairamdas Lalwant VS Nazneen Khalid Qureshi - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 288]
  • "Public Accountants Default Act, 1850" - The Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, provides for recovery of misappropriated government funds, including scholarship funds, as arrears of land revenue. [Source: SAVITA VERMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 247]
  • "West Bengal Hindu Social Disabilities Removal Act, 1948" - The Act was held to be a valid law that prohibits discrimination against Hindus on the basis of caste or class, and is not ultra vires the Constitution of India. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947" - The Act provides for punishment for refusal to render services to Scheduled Castes, and the court interpreted the term "refusal to render service" to include not only outright refusal but also implied refusal through actions or conduct. [Source: STATE THROUGH GOKUL CHAND VS BANWARI - 1951 0 Supreme(All) 16]
  • "Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016" - The Act provides for the cancellation of caste certificate and removal of Pradhan, and the court emphasized the requirement for the individual to be given an opportunity to make representation before suspension or removal. [Source: Amarpal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 258]
  • "Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993" - Section 57(1) of the Act outlines the grounds for removal of a member of the Panchayat, and the court emphasized that the power of removal can only be exercised for strong and weighty reasons. [Source: GITABEN W/O FULSINH THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 132]
  • "Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978" - The Act vests the power to remove members of the Village Council solely with the State Government, and the ADC had no jurisdiction to remove the petitioner. [Source: Animojemu VS State of Nagaland and Another - 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 150]
  • "Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965" - Section 55 of the Act does not require the requisition to state the grounds for the removal of the President of a Municipal Council. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Punjab Municipal Act, 1911" - Section 14(e) of the Act empowers the State Government to remove a member from office only for the purpose of reconstituting the committee, and not for the purpose of eliminating a member who is not fit to hold office. [Source: Harnam Singh Modi VS Sate Of Punjab - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 84]
  • "Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928" - Section 2 of the Act removed all disqualifications for inheritance or share in joint family property, except for congenital lunacy or idiocy, and a person with supervening lunacy was not debarred from instituting a suit for partition. [Source: K. Sivanandam VS Maragathammal - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2266]
  • "Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955" - The Act provides conditions and prohibitions for adoption, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, failed to remove the caste disability in adoption as the outcast son does not retain the religious capacity to perform the obsequial rites. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Hindu Marriage Act, 1955" - Section 9(2) of the Act provides that nothing shall be pleaded in answer to a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which shall not be a ground for judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce, and the Act was held not to apply to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights based on custom. [Source: MOHAN LAL VS SHANTI DEVI - 1962 0 Supreme(All) 72]
  • "Special Marriage Act, 1954" - Section 20 of the Act provides that any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act shall have the same rights and shall be subject to the same disabilities in regard to the right of succession to any property as a person to whom the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 applies. [Source: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1046]
  • "Indian Succession Act, 1925" - The Act governs succession to the estate of a deceased Christian, and a Hindu relation can inherit the property of a Christian deceased under the Act, as the religion of the claimant is irrelevant for succession claims. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Certificate Cancellation" - The cancellation of a caste certificate can be challenged, and the authority issuing the certificate has the inherent power to cancel it if it was obtained through misrepresentation. [Source: BHIKHAM KHARWAR; RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY VS STATE OF U P - 1999 0 Supreme(All) 1959]
  • "Recovery Certificate" - A recovery certificate for misappropriated scholarship funds can be issued under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, and the burden of proof for the disbursement of funds lies with the accused. [Source: SAVITA VERMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 247]
  • "Removal from service" - An employee acquiring disability during service can neither be removed from service nor demoted, and the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850" - The Act provides for the removal of a public servant from service after an enquiry, and the word 'removable' means removal from the office altogether i.e., virtually a dismissal of the incumbent. [Source: R. P. Kapur VS S. Pratap Singh Kairoa - 1963 0 Supreme(SC) 190]
  • "Calcutta Small Cause Court Act, 1850" - Section 58 of the Act provides for the right to remove tiled huts erected on leased land, and the court recognized the customary practice in Calcutta allowing tenants to remove such huts. [Source: Parbutty Bewah VS Woomatara Dabee - 1875 0 Supreme(Cal) 22]
  • "Transfer of Property Act, 1882" - Section 108(H) of the Act provides for the removal of temporary constructions by a lessee, and the lessee is entitled to remove temporary constructions made by him even after the passing of a decree. [Source: MANA DEVI VS MALKI RAM - 1960 0 Supreme(All) 104]
  • "Bengal Act VI of 1868" - Schedule K, Clause 1 of the Act provides for the removal of obstructions by a Magistrate, and the act of removing an obstruction is not a judicial act but an executive or ministerial act. [Source: Brijo Bullub Gooyee VS Chunder Narain Singh, Deputy Magistrate of Cutwa - 1874 0 Supreme(Cal) 52]
  • "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973" - Sections 133 and 141 of the Code provide for the removal of public nuisance, and a Magistrate has the authority to remove obstruction for public good and recover cost involved in such task. [Source: SRI ABHIMANYU HOTA VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2006 0 Supreme(Ori) 752]
  • "Hindu Widows' Marriage Act, 1856" - Act XV of 1856 applies only to Hindu widows who remarry as Hindus, and not to those who have converted to another religion, and does not support the argument that adultery automatically forfeits a widow's estate. [Source: Karnam Chowdappa VS Karnam Narasamma - 1917 0 Supreme(Mad) 402]
  • "Travancore Christian Succession Act" - The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the rules of law applicable to intestate succession among the Indian Christians in Travancore, and it abrogated the customary law that allowed Hindu Nadars to inherit from Christian converts. [Source: Mettilbai VS Balammal - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2617]
  • "Punjab Laws Act, 4 of 1872" - Section 5 of the Act provides that in questions regarding succession, adoption, the rule of decision shall be custom applicable to the parties concerned, or the Hindu law, in cases where the parties are Hindus. [Source: Ranbir Karam Singh VS Jogindra Chandra Bhattacharji - 1939 0 Supreme(All) 232]
  • "Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950" - The validity of a Scheduled Tribe caste certificate can be challenged, and the court can quash the impugned order and direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to grant a caste validity certificate. [Source: Prashant Pandit Shelke VS State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1528]
  • "Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000" - The Act provides for the regulation of issuance and verification of caste certificates, and the court can direct the Committee to issue a caste validity certificate to the petitioner. [Source: Karishma Imraan Khan Mujawar VS State Of Maharashtra - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 657]
  • "U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947" - Section 95(1)(g)(iii-a) of the Act provides for the removal of Pradhan, and the District Magistrate had no power to remove a Pradhan as he had contested the election on a forged caste certificate. [Source: SATYA DEO SHAKYA VS AJAY KUMAR GUTPA - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2398]
  • "U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997" - The Rules provide for the procedure for removal of Pradhan, and the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, which requires an enquiry to be conducted before a Pradhan can be removed, is not applicable to cases falling under Clause (iii-a) of the section. [Source: BHIKHAM KHARWAR; RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY VS STATE OF U P - 1999 0 Supreme(All) 1959]
  • "Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991" - Rule 20 of the CCA Rules provides for the procedure for removal of an employee, and the respondent-employee could not continue to occupy the post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates since her Scheduled Caste Certificate had been cancelled. [Source: State of Andhra Pradesh VS A. Nakshtramma - 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 368]
  • "Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978" - Rule 70 of the Rules provides for the election and removal of the President of a Municipal Committee, and if no Scheduled Caste woman councilor is available, the seat of President can be given to the Scheduled Caste male category. [Source: Om Pati VS State of Haryana - 2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 1388]
  • "Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993" - Section 57(1) of the Act outlines the grounds for the removal of a member of the Panchayat, including misconduct, disgraceful conduct, abuse of power, persistent default in duties, and incapability of performing duties. [Source: GITABEN W/O FULSINH THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 132]
  • "Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978" - Section 9 of the Act provides for the removal of Village Council members, and the power to remove members from the Village Council is vested solely with the State Government. [Source: Animojemu VS State of Nagaland and Another - 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 150]
  • "West Bengal Hindu Social Disabilities Removal Act, 1948" - The Act was challenged as ultra vires the Constitution of India, but the court held that it was a valid law that prohibits discrimination against Hindus on the basis of caste or class. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947" - Section 3 and Section 6 of the Act provide for punishment for refusal to render services to Scheduled Castes, and the court held that the accused's refusal was solely based on the caste of the Chamars. [Source: STATE THROUGH GOKUL CHAND VS BANWARI - 1951 0 Supreme(All) 16]
  • "Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016" - Section 138 of the Act provides for the cancellation of Scheduled Caste certificate and removal of a member of the Panchayats, and the court emphasized the requirement for the individual to be given an opportunity to make representation before suspension or removal. [Source: Amarpal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 258]
  • "Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965" - Section 55 of the Act provides for the removal of the President of a Municipal Council, and the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Punjab Municipal Act, 1911" - Section 14(e) of the Act empowers the State Government to remove a member from office only for the purpose of reconstituting the committee, and not for the purpose of eliminating a member who is not fit to hold office. [Source: Harnam Singh Modi VS Sate Of Punjab - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 84]
  • "Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850" - The Act provides for the removal of a public servant from service after an enquiry, and the requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is satisfied if the Government servant is informed of the charges against him, given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence, and is given a further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment after the enquiry is over. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55" - The Rules are not applicable to an enquiry conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and the enquiry officer has the discretion to admit evidence which he considers relevant and admissible. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995" - Section 47 of the Act provides that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service, and the employee is required to first pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before seeking relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. [Source: R. Manimaran VS Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Anna Salai - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2946]
  • "Hindu Succession Act, 1956" - Section 6 of the Act applies to female heirs not falling in class 1 of the Schedule, and the provisions of Section 6 have no application to such heirs. [Source: Sukhmanti VS Chbotelal - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 408]
  • "Hindu Succession Act, 1956" - Section 14(1) of the Act provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. [Source: K. Sivanandam VS Maragathammal - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2266]
  • "Hindu Succession Act, 1956" - Section 26 of the Act disqualifies the children of a convert from inheriting the property of their Hindu relatives, unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens. [Source: E. Ramesh VS P. Rajini - 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 1208]
  • "Hindu Succession Act, 1956" - Section 4(1)(b) of the Act envisages that any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act, including the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850. [Source: K. Sivanandam VS Maragathammal - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2266]
  • "Hindu Succession Act, 1956" - The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was enacted when the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, was already in existence, and the HSA applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. [Source: Balchand Jairamdas Lalwant VS Nazneen Khalid Qureshi - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 288]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was repealed on 8th August, 2017, by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, along with nearly 91 other obsolete acts. [Source: Balchand Jairamdas Lalwant VS Nazneen Khalid Qureshi - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 288]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act is a complete enactment containing only one Section, which is as follows: "Law or usage which inflicts forfeiture of, or affects, rights on change of religion or loss of caste to cease to be enforced; So much of any law or usage now in force within India as inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property, or may be held in any way to impair to affect any right of inheritance, by reason of his or her renouncing, or having excluded from the communion of, any religion, or being deprived of caste, shall cease to be enforced as law in any Court". [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was enacted for extending the principles contained in Section 9, Regulation VII, 1832, of the Bengal Code throughout the territories subject to the Government of the East India Company. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act removed the stigma of inheriting property in case of conversion to another religion, and by virtue of this provision, the conversion of a Hindu to other religion will not disentitle the convert from his right of inheritance to the property. [Source: K. Sivanandam VS Maragathammal - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2266]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act applies to protect the actual person who either renounced his religion or had been excluded from the communion of any religion or had been deprived of caste, and does not extend to descendants of a convert relying on the law of his birth for inheritance from unconverted relatives. [Source: Vaithilinga Odayar VS Atyathorai Odayar And Three Ors. - 1917 0 Supreme(Mad) 10]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act does not have retrospective operation, and a person who converted before the Act came into force forfeited his right to the property, which thereafter vested in the other members of the joint family to his exclusion. [Source: RANGANATHA MALLAN VS KARTHYAYANI - 1965 0 Supreme(Ker) 349]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act does not enlarge the convert's interest in any property or get rid of any condition or restriction to which it was originally subject, but merely lays down a rule under which the court might refuse to enforce the consequences of apostasy. [Source: Prayag Gope VS Etnal Smart - 1995 0 Supreme(Pat) 60]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was extended to Kanyakumari District in 1951 (1126 M.E.), and its provisions cannot have application to the facts of the case if the Act was extended after the death of the owner of the suit property. [Source: Mettilbai VS Balammal - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2617]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, and the customary law of succession for Nadars was disrupted by the latter Act. [Source: Mettilbai VS Balammal - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2617]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was relied upon in cases involving inheritance rights of converts, and the court held that the Act only relieves from forfeiture the person who has changed his religion and not any other person affected by such a change. [Source: Sundarammal VS Ameenal - 1926 0 Supreme(Mad) 356]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was interpreted by the Privy Council in Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain, and the court held that the Act virtually set aside the provisions of Hindu law which penalize renunciation of religion or exclusion from caste. [Source: RANGANATHA MALLAN VS KARTHYAYANI - 1965 0 Supreme(Ker) 349]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Special Marriage Act, 1872, and the court held that the Act only applies to protect a person who has changed his religion, and does not affect the applicability of Hindu law to a person who merely declares that he does not profess Hindu religion. [Source: Commissioner Of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Madhya Bharat VS Pratap Chand Co. , British Motor Car Co. Ltd. , New Delhi - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 104]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Indian Succession Act, and the court held that a Hindu relation can inherit the property of a Christian deceased under the Indian Succession Act, and the religion of the claimant is irrelevant for succession claims. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Mahomadan Law, and the court held that a Hindu cannot succeed to the estate of a Mahomadan under Mahomadan Law, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act does not assist in such cases unless the person renounced his religion. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, and the court held that the burden of proof for the disbursement of misappropriated funds lies with the accused, and recovery of misappropriated funds can be pursued under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850. [Source: SAVITA VERMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 247]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the West Bengal Hindu Social Disabilities Removal Act, 1948, and the court held that the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India and is a valid law. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947, and the court held that the Act provides for punishment for refusal to render services to Scheduled Castes. [Source: STATE THROUGH GOKUL CHAND VS BANWARI - 1951 0 Supreme(All) 16]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and the court emphasized the requirement for the individual to be given an opportunity to make representation before suspension or removal. [Source: Amarpal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 258]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, and the court emphasized that the power of removal can only be exercised for strong and weighty reasons. [Source: GITABEN W/O FULSINH THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 132]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978, and the court held that the power to remove members from the Village Council is vested solely with the State Government. [Source: Animojemu VS State of Nagaland and Another - 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 150]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, and the court held that the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and the court held that the State Government cannot remove a member from office under Section 14(e) for the purpose of eliminating a member who is not fit to hold office. [Source: Harnam Singh Modi VS Sate Of Punjab - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 84]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and the court held that the requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is satisfied if the Government servant is informed of the charges against him, given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence, and is given a further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment after the enquiry is over. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, and the court held that the Rules are not applicable to an enquiry conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the court held that the employee is required to first pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before seeking relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. [Source: R. Manimaran VS Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Anna Salai - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2946]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the court held that the Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, continues to protect converts from forfeiture of inheritance rights. [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act provides conditions and prohibitions for adoption, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, failed to remove the caste disability in adoption. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act was not applicable to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights based on custom. [Source: MOHAN LAL VS SHANTI DEVI - 1962 0 Supreme(All) 72]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the court held that Section 20 of the Act provides that any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act shall have the same rights and shall be subject to the same disabilities in regard to the right of succession to any property as a person to whom the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 applies. [Source: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1046]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the court held that a Hindu relation can inherit the property of a Christian deceased under the Indian Succession Act, and the religion of the claimant is irrelevant for succession claims. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Mahomadan Law, and the court held that a Hindu cannot succeed to the estate of a Mahomadan under Mahomadan Law, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act does not assist in such cases unless the person renounced his religion. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, and the court held that the burden of proof for the disbursement of misappropriated funds lies with the accused, and recovery of misappropriated funds can be pursued under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850. [Source: SAVITA VERMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 247]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the West Bengal Hindu Social Disabilities Removal Act, 1948, and the court held that the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India and is a valid law. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947, and the court held that the Act provides for punishment for refusal to render services to Scheduled Castes. [Source: STATE THROUGH GOKUL CHAND VS BANWARI - 1951 0 Supreme(All) 16]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and the court emphasized the requirement for the individual to be given an opportunity to make representation before suspension or removal. [Source: Amarpal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 258]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, and the court emphasized that the power of removal can only be exercised for strong and weighty reasons. [Source: GITABEN W/O FULSINH THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 132]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978, and the court held that the power to remove members from the Village Council is vested solely with the State Government. [Source: Animojemu VS State of Nagaland and Another - 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 150]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, and the court held that the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and the court held that the State Government cannot remove a member from office under Section 14(e) for the purpose of eliminating a member who is not fit to hold office. [Source: Harnam Singh Modi VS Sate Of Punjab - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 84]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and the court held that the requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is satisfied if the Government servant is informed of the charges against him, given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence, and is given a further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment after the enquiry is over. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, and the court held that the Rules are not applicable to an enquiry conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the court held that the employee is required to first pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before seeking relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. [Source: R. Manimaran VS Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Anna Salai - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2946]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the court held that the Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, continues to protect converts from forfeiture of inheritance rights. [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act provides conditions and prohibitions for adoption, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, failed to remove the caste disability in adoption. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act was not applicable to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights based on custom. [Source: MOHAN LAL VS SHANTI DEVI - 1962 0 Supreme(All) 72]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the court held that Section 20 of the Act provides that any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act shall have the same rights and shall be subject to the same disabilities in regard to the right of succession to any property as a person to whom the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 applies. [Source: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1046]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the court held that a Hindu relation can inherit the property of a Christian deceased under the Indian Succession Act, and the religion of the claimant is irrelevant for succession claims. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Mahomadan Law, and the court held that a Hindu cannot succeed to the estate of a Mahomadan under Mahomadan Law, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act does not assist in such cases unless the person renounced his religion. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, and the court held that the burden of proof for the disbursement of misappropriated funds lies with the accused, and recovery of misappropriated funds can be pursued under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850. [Source: SAVITA VERMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 247]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the West Bengal Hindu Social Disabilities Removal Act, 1948, and the court held that the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India and is a valid law. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947, and the court held that the Act provides for punishment for refusal to render services to Scheduled Castes. [Source: STATE THROUGH GOKUL CHAND VS BANWARI - 1951 0 Supreme(All) 16]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and the court emphasized the requirement for the individual to be given an opportunity to make representation before suspension or removal. [Source: Amarpal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 258]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, and the court emphasized that the power of removal can only be exercised for strong and weighty reasons. [Source: GITABEN W/O FULSINH THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 132]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978, and the court held that the power to remove members from the Village Council is vested solely with the State Government. [Source: Animojemu VS State of Nagaland and Another - 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 150]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, and the court held that the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and the court held that the State Government cannot remove a member from office under Section 14(e) for the purpose of eliminating a member who is not fit to hold office. [Source: Harnam Singh Modi VS Sate Of Punjab - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 84]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and the court held that the requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is satisfied if the Government servant is informed of the charges against him, given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence, and is given a further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment after the enquiry is over. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, and the court held that the Rules are not applicable to an enquiry conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the court held that the employee is required to first pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before seeking relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. [Source: R. Manimaran VS Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Anna Salai - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2946]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the court held that the Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, continues to protect converts from forfeiture of inheritance rights. [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act provides conditions and prohibitions for adoption, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, failed to remove the caste disability in adoption. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act was not applicable to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights based on custom. [Source: MOHAN LAL VS SHANTI DEVI - 1962 0 Supreme(All) 72]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the court held that Section 20 of the Act provides that any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act shall have the same rights and shall be subject to the same disabilities in regard to the right of succession to any property as a person to whom the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 applies. [Source: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1046]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the court held that a Hindu relation can inherit the property of a Christian deceased under the Indian Succession Act, and the religion of the claimant is irrelevant for succession claims. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Mahomadan Law, and the court held that a Hindu cannot succeed to the estate of a Mahomadan under Mahomadan Law, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act does not assist in such cases unless the person renounced his religion. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, and the court held that the burden of proof for the disbursement of misappropriated funds lies with the accused, and recovery of misappropriated funds can be pursued under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850. [Source: SAVITA VERMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 247]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the West Bengal Hindu Social Disabilities Removal Act, 1948, and the court held that the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India and is a valid law. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947, and the court held that the Act provides for punishment for refusal to render services to Scheduled Castes. [Source: STATE THROUGH GOKUL CHAND VS BANWARI - 1951 0 Supreme(All) 16]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and the court emphasized the requirement for the individual to be given an opportunity to make representation before suspension or removal. [Source: Amarpal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 258]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, and the court emphasized that the power of removal can only be exercised for strong and weighty reasons. [Source: GITABEN W/O FULSINH THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 132]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978, and the court held that the power to remove members from the Village Council is vested solely with the State Government. [Source: Animojemu VS State of Nagaland and Another - 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 150]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, and the court held that the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and the court held that the State Government cannot remove a member from office under Section 14(e) for the purpose of eliminating a member who is not fit to hold office. [Source: Harnam Singh Modi VS Sate Of Punjab - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 84]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and the court held that the requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is satisfied if the Government servant is informed of the charges against him, given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence, and is given a further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment after the enquiry is over. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, and the court held that the Rules are not applicable to an enquiry conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the court held that the employee is required to first pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before seeking relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. [Source: R. Manimaran VS Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Anna Salai - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2946]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the court held that the Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, continues to protect converts from forfeiture of inheritance rights. [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act provides conditions and prohibitions for adoption, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, failed to remove the caste disability in adoption. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act was not applicable to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights based on custom. [Source: MOHAN LAL VS SHANTI DEVI - 1962 0 Supreme(All) 72]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the court held that Section 20 of the Act provides that any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act shall have the same rights and shall be subject to the same disabilities in regard to the right of succession to any property as a person to whom the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 applies. [Source: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1046]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the court held that a Hindu relation can inherit the property of a Christian deceased under the Indian Succession Act, and the religion of the claimant is irrelevant for succession claims. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Mahomadan Law, and the court held that a Hindu cannot succeed to the estate of a Mahomadan under Mahomadan Law, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act does not assist in such cases unless the person renounced his religion. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, and the court held that the burden of proof for the disbursement of misappropriated funds lies with the accused, and recovery of misappropriated funds can be pursued under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850. [Source: SAVITA VERMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 247]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the West Bengal Hindu Social Disabilities Removal Act, 1948, and the court held that the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India and is a valid law. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947, and the court held that the Act provides for punishment for refusal to render services to Scheduled Castes. [Source: STATE THROUGH GOKUL CHAND VS BANWARI - 1951 0 Supreme(All) 16]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and the court emphasized the requirement for the individual to be given an opportunity to make representation before suspension or removal. [Source: Amarpal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 258]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, and the court emphasized that the power of removal can only be exercised for strong and weighty reasons. [Source: GITABEN W/O FULSINH THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 132]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978, and the court held that the power to remove members from the Village Council is vested solely with the State Government. [Source: Animojemu VS State of Nagaland and Another - 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 150]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, and the court held that the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and the court held that the State Government cannot remove a member from office under Section 14(e) for the purpose of eliminating a member who is not fit to hold office. [Source: Harnam Singh Modi VS Sate Of Punjab - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 84]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and the court held that the requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is satisfied if the Government servant is informed of the charges against him, given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence, and is given a further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment after the enquiry is over. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, and the court held that the Rules are not applicable to an enquiry conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the court held that the employee is required to first pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before seeking relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. [Source: R. Manimaran VS Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Anna Salai - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2946]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the court held that the Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, continues to protect converts from forfeiture of inheritance rights. [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act provides conditions and prohibitions for adoption, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, failed to remove the caste disability in adoption. [Source: Kashi Nath (Dead) through Lrs. VS Jaganath - 2003 7 Supreme 714]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the court held that the Act was not applicable to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights based on custom. [Source: MOHAN LAL VS SHANTI DEVI - 1962 0 Supreme(All) 72]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the court held that Section 20 of the Act provides that any person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act shall have the same rights and shall be subject to the same disabilities in regard to the right of succession to any property as a person to whom the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 applies. [Source: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1046]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the court held that a Hindu relation can inherit the property of a Christian deceased under the Indian Succession Act, and the religion of the claimant is irrelevant for succession claims. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Mahomadan Law, and the court held that a Hindu cannot succeed to the estate of a Mahomadan under Mahomadan Law, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act does not assist in such cases unless the person renounced his religion. [Source: K. P. CHANDRASEKHARAPPA VS GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE - 1952 0 Supreme(Kar) 97]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850, and the court held that the burden of proof for the disbursement of misappropriated funds lies with the accused, and recovery of misappropriated funds can be pursued under the Public Accountants Default Act, 1850. [Source: SAVITA VERMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 247]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the West Bengal Hindu Social Disabilities Removal Act, 1948, and the court held that the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India and is a valid law. [Source: BANAMALI DAS VS PAKHU BHANDARI - 1951 0 Supreme(Cal) 195]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the U.P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947, and the court held that the Act provides for punishment for refusal to render services to Scheduled Castes. [Source: STATE THROUGH GOKUL CHAND VS BANWARI - 1951 0 Supreme(All) 16]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, and the court emphasized the requirement for the individual to be given an opportunity to make representation before suspension or removal. [Source: Amarpal VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 258]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, and the court emphasized that the power of removal can only be exercised for strong and weighty reasons. [Source: GITABEN W/O FULSINH THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2015 0 Supreme(Guj) 132]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978, and the court held that the power to remove members from the Village Council is vested solely with the State Government. [Source: Animojemu VS State of Nagaland and Another - 1996 0 Supreme(Gau) 150]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, and the court held that the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed. [Source: J. Mallesam VS A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 146]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and the court held that the State Government cannot remove a member from office under Section 14(e) for the purpose of eliminating a member who is not fit to hold office. [Source: Harnam Singh Modi VS Sate Of Punjab - 1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 84]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, and the court held that the requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution is satisfied if the Government servant is informed of the charges against him, given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence, and is given a further opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment after the enquiry is over. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 55, and the court held that the Rules are not applicable to an enquiry conducted under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. [Source: Tribhuwan Nath VS State Of Bihar - 1959 0 Supreme(Pat) 103]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the court held that the employee is required to first pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before seeking relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. [Source: R. Manimaran VS Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Anna Salai - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2946]
  • "Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850" - The Act was considered in the context of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the court held that the Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, continues to protect converts from forfeiture of inheritance rights. [Source: Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan VS Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1611]

S.2 Short title and extent

       (1) This Act may be called the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850.
       (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.


Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 – Section 2: Legal Commentary

Introduction

The Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850 (Act XXI of 1850) was a landmark social reform legislation enacted during British India under East India Company rule. Section 2 of the Act deals with its territorial extent and applicability. The Act was designed to abolish all laws and customs that inflicted forfeiture of rights or property, or impaired inheritance rights, by reason of a person renouncing their religion, being excluded from the communion of a religion, or being deprived of caste. The Act has since been repealed as part of the Union Government's initiative to remove obsolete laws.

What Does Section 2 Say?

Section 2 of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, contains two sub-sections:- Section 2(1): The Act extends to the whole of India.- Section 2(2): The Act does not extend to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The section establishes the territorial scope of the legislation, making it applicable across all of British India (and later, independent India) with the specific exception of Jammu and Kashmir.

Essential Ingredients

  • The Act applies to the whole of India as its default territorial operation.
  • The State of Jammu and Kashmir is expressly excluded from the operation of the Act.
  • The section does not define "Hindu" or specify religious community — it is a territorial extent clause, not a substantive rights clause.

Scope of Section

  • The scope is limited to territorial applicability — it does not create or define any substantive right or disability.
  • It operates as a declaratory and enabling provision, indicating where the reforms of the Act (such as the removal of forfeiture of property rights on conversion) shall apply.
  • The exclusion of Jammu and Kashmir reflects the special constitutional and political status of that region during the colonial and post-colonial period.

Punishment for Section

  • Section 2 itself does not prescribe any punishment or penalty. It is a provision defining the territorial extent of the Act.
  • The Act as a whole did not contain penal provisions for violations of its substantive protections; rather, it operated to nullify existing discriminatory customs and laws in civil and inheritance matters.

Legal Comments

Legal Comments

SupremeToday Portrait Ad

Enter the Future of Legal Excellence with SupremeToday AI

Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.

experience-legal

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

App_Store_Badge Google_Play_Store

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

WhatsApp Telegram Instagram Icon X YouTube Facebook LinkedIn

Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

whatsapp-icon