<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1964 (10) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199448</link>
    <description>Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 requires a person to profess the Hindu or Sikh religion to be treated as a Scheduled Caste member for reservation purposes. The SC stated that &quot;professes&quot; means an open and public declaration of religious belief, and that a public conversion to another religion cannot be ignored by reference to the formal validity of the rite alone. On the evidence, the respondent&#039;s embrace of Buddhism was established, and Buddhism was treated as a religion distinct from Hinduism for this Order. Article 25 did not expand &quot;Hindu&quot; in paragraph 3 to include Buddhists, so the respondent was ineligible for the reserved seat.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:50:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (10) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199448</link>
      <description>Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 requires a person to profess the Hindu or Sikh religion to be treated as a Scheduled Caste member for reservation purposes. The SC stated that &quot;professes&quot; means an open and public declaration of religious belief, and that a public conversion to another religion cannot be ignored by reference to the formal validity of the rite alone. On the evidence, the respondent&#039;s embrace of Buddhism was established, and Buddhism was treated as a religion distinct from Hinduism for this Order. Article 25 did not expand &quot;Hindu&quot; in paragraph 3 to include Buddhists, so the respondent was ineligible for the reserved seat.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>