judgement
Subject : Constitutional Law - Scheduled Castes and Tribes
The case involved a challenge to a notification issued by the Bihar government in 2015, which sought to merge the 'Tanti-Tantwa' caste with the 'Pan/Sawasi' caste, which is listed as a Scheduled Caste in the state. The move was based on the recommendation of the State Backward Commission, which claimed that 'Tanti-Tantwa' was synonymous with 'Pan/Sawasi'.
The appellants argued that the state government had no authority to make such a change to the Scheduled Castes list, as per the provisions of Article 341 of the Constitution. They contended that any amendment to the Scheduled Castes list can only be made by an act of Parliament, not by a state government.
The state government, on the other hand, argued that the notification was merely a clarification and did not amount to an amendment to the Scheduled Castes list. They claimed that 'Tanti-Tantwa' was already a part of the 'Pan/Sawasi' caste and that the notification was intended to extend the benefits of
The Supreme Court rejected the state government's arguments, holding that the notification was clearly an attempt to tinker with the Scheduled Castes list, which is beyond the state's constitutional powers. The court emphasized that Article 341 of the Constitution is clear that any inclusion or exclusion of a caste from the Scheduled Castes list can only be done through an act of Parliament, and not by a state government.
The court also noted that the state government was aware of its lack of authority, as it had previously approached the central government in 2011 to include 'Tanti-Tantwa' in the Scheduled Castes list, but the request was not accepted.
The Supreme Court quashed the Bihar government's notification dated July 1, 2015, holding that it was unconstitutional and beyond the state's powers. The court directed the state to return the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes that were filled by members of the 'Tanti-Tantwa' community under the impugned notification, and to accommodate them under the Extremely Backward Classes category instead.
The judgment is a significant victory for the principles of federalism and the constitutional safeguards for Scheduled Castes, as it upholds the exclusive power of Parliament to make changes to the Scheduled Castes list.
#ScheduledCastes #ConstitutionalLaw #CasteReservations #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Belated Challenge by Non-Bidders to GeM Tender Conditions for School Sports Equipment Not Maintainable: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.