1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court denies Scheduled Caste nomination appeal, ruling sub-caste not synonymous with claimed caste status.</h1> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of the appellant's nomination as a Scheduled Caste candidate for a parliamentary ... - Issues:- Rejection of nomination of the appellant as a Scheduled Caste candidate for parliamentary constituency- Interpretation of the Presidential Notification regarding Scheduled Castes in Karnataka- Dispute over the appellant's caste status as Beda Jangamma- Reliance on civil court judgment and evidence from Census Department and Legislative Department- Validity of the certificate issued by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner- Conclusion on the appellant's eligibility to contest as a Scheduled Caste candidateAnalysis:The appeal under Section 116-B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was filed challenging the rejection of the appellant's nomination as a Scheduled Caste candidate for the Bidar-1 (SC) Parliamentary Constituency. The High Court of Karnataka had dismissed the appellant's election petition, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant claimed to be a Beda Jangamma, disputing the High Court's finding that he belonged to the Veerashiva Lingayath Community. The central issue was whether the appellant could be considered a Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma) as per the Presidential Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution.The appellant contended that his sub-caste, Veerashiva, was synonymous with Beda Jangamma and relied on a civil court judgment (Ex P-14) to support his claim. However, the Supreme Court held that the courts cannot declare a caste status based on synonymous names claimed by a party, as specified in the Presidential Notification. The High Court's finding that the appellant was not a Beda Jangamma was upheld after considering all evidence, including the Census Report and Legislative Department Notification, which were deemed irrelevant for valid reasons.Regarding the civil court judgment Ex P-14, it was noted that the High Court was not bound by it, especially since the certificate issued by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, forming the basis of the appellant's claim, was found to lack jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellant's status as a Scheduled Caste candidate was denied, and the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that there was no justification for considering him eligible to contest as a Scheduled Caste candidate.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
