Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970
5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this
Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar
and Dina v. Narain Singh did not lay down law
correctly in stating that the inquiry was
permissible and the evidence was admissible
within the limitations indicated for the purpose
of showing what an entry in the Presidential
Order was intended to be. As stated in Position
(1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and
no evidence can be let in, in the matter.”
Dina Nath Singh Ors vs Subh Narain Singh & Ors on 3 February, 2012
5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this
Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar
and Dina v. Narain Singh did not lay down law
correctly in stating that the inquiry was
permissible and the evidence was admissible
within the limitations indicated for the purpose
of showing what an entry in the Presidential
Order was intended to be. As stated in Position
(1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and
no evidence can be let in, in the matter.”
Parsram And Anr vs Shivchand And Ors on 28 November, 1968
In Parsram v. Shivchand, (1969) 1 SCC 20,
referring to the two Constitution Bench judgments of
this Court in Basavalingappa and Bhaiya Lal
aforementioned, this Court declared that: (SCC p. 24)
'These judgments are binding on us and we do
not therefore think that it would be of any use
to look into the gazetteers and the glossaries
on the Punjab castes and tribes to which
reference was made at the Bar to find out
whether Mochi and Chamar in some parts of
the State at least meant the same caste
______________
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:29:46 pm )
W.P.No.31849 of 2025
although there might be some difference in the
professions followed by their members, the
main difference being that Chamars skin dead
animals which Mochis do not. However, that
may be, the question not being open to
agitation by evidence and being one the
determination of which lies within the exclusive
power of the President, it is not for us to
examine it and come to a conclusion that if a
person was in fact a Mochi, he could still claim
to belong to the Scheduled Caste of Chamars
and be allowed to contest an election on that
basis.'
Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya ... vs State Of Kerala (Bharucha, J.) on 3 December, 1993
25. Yet, again a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi
v. State of Kerala, (1994) 1 SCC 359, has held that
neither the State Government nor the court can inquire
into or let in evidence relating to any claim as
belonging to Scheduled Castes in any entry of the
Scheduled Castes Order. Scheduled Castes Order has
to be applied as it stands until the same is amended by
appropriate legislation. Para 20 of the said judgment
______________
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:29:46 pm )
W.P.No.31849 of 2025
reads thus: (SCC pp. 365-66)
'20.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nityanand Sharma & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 February, 1996
In Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1996) 3
SCC 576, the view expressed is that it is for Parliament
______________
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 03:29:46 pm )
W.P.No.31849 of 2025
to amend the law and the schedule to include or
exclude from the schedule a tribe or tribal community
or part of or group within a tribe or tribal community in
the State, district or region and its declaration is
conclusive. The court has no power to declare
synonymous as equal to the tribes specified in the
Order or include in or substitute any caste/tribe etc.
...
State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000
6. Having carried out survey as above, the Supreme Court, in
Milind (supra), summarized the legal position as below:
B. Basavalingappa vs D. Munichinnappa on 23 September, 1964
In B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, AIR
1965 SC 1269, a Constitution Bench of this Court has
held thus: