Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.34 seconds)

Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors on 28 January, 2005

16. Section 3 of Act 11 of 1996 makes it absolutely clear that the caste certificate to be issued under the Act is only for claiming "any benefit, concession, protection, exemption or reservation provided to such castes or tribes either for any appointment in public services or for admission into educational institutions, exclusively intended for members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or for contesting for the seats reserved for them in educational institution in the State or outside the State for the students of the State or local authority or co-operative E.P.2/2009 55 institution". The certificate is not for submitting to contest an election for either Parliament or Legislative Assembly. An identical provision in Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 ) was considered by the Apex Court in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Others (2005) 2 SCC 244) and held that the certificate does not embrace an election to the Legislative Assembly or to the Parliament and therefore the court is not bound by the certificate in exercise of the jurisdiction under the Representation of People Act in an election petition and is not precluded from going into the question of status of a candidate or making an independent inquiry into that question, in spite of production of a caste certificate as provided under the said Act. As Act 11 of 1996 E.P.2/2009 56 is not applicable to an election to the Parliament or Legislative Assembly, for the reason that Ext.P1 was not issued following the procedure provided under the said Act or is not in the prescribed form or on the ground that the application was not submitted in the prescribed form, it cannot be said that the caste certificate cannot be relied on by the Returning Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 73 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Principal, Guntur Medical College, ... vs Y.Mohan Rao on 6 April, 1976

In Guntur Medical College's case (supra) a five Judge Bench reiterated the principle that there is no absolute rule applicable to all cases that "whenever a member of a caste is converted from Hinduism to Christianity, he loses his membership of the caste" and the question was considered in Arumugam's case(supra) and pointed out that "ordinarily it is true that on conversion to christianity, a person would cease to be a member of the caste to which he belongs but it is not an inevitable rule and the consistent view taken since 1886 was that on reconversion to Hinduism, a person can once again become a member of the caste in which he was born and to which he belonged before conversion to another religion, if the members of the caste accept him as a member and there was no reason either on principle or on authority to disregard that E.P.2/2009 94 view which prevailed for almost a century. The Constitution Bench declared that the said reasoning is equally applicable in a case where the parents of a person converted from Hinduism to Christianity and he is born after their conversion. Their Lordships held:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 59 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next