Caste-based reservations, India (legal position) - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Change of category */

2026-07-08T19:03:06Z

‎Change of category

Jyoti: /* Stop SC benefits to converted Christians, HC */

2026-04-16T11:03:16Z

‎Stop SC benefits to converted Christians, HC

Jyoti: /* Income alone can’t be the criterion: SC/ 2021 */

2026-03-29T10:02:03Z

‎Income alone can’t be the criterion: SC/ 2021

Jyoti: /* ‘High score & upgrade to general category won’t erode quota perks’ */

2026-03-24T17:38:58Z

‎‘High score & upgrade to general category won’t erode quota perks’

Jyoti: /* ‘High score & upgrade to general category won’t erode quota perks’ */

2026-03-24T17:11:22Z

‎‘High score & upgrade to general category won’t erode quota perks’

Jyoti: /* Wife can get caste status of spouse in rare cases/ HC */

2025-12-22T18:44:15Z

‎Wife can get caste status of spouse in rare cases/ HC

Jyoti: /* ‘General’ seats for meritorious SC/ST/OBC candidates */

2025-12-15T20:50:40Z

‎‘General’ seats for meritorious SC/ST/OBC candidates

Jyoti: /* ‘General’ seats for meritorious SC/ST/OBC candidates */

2025-12-15T20:48:20Z

‎‘General’ seats for meritorious SC/ST/OBC candidates

Jyoti: /* Change/ Conversion of religion and SC/ST status */

2025-12-15T20:47:11Z

‎Change/ Conversion of religion and SC/ST status

Jyoti: /* Death penalty under POCSO */

2025-12-15T20:45:58Z

‎Death penalty under POCSO

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, 8 July 2026
Line 420:		Line 420:


		+	=Change/ Conversion of religion and OBC status=
		+	==Convert to Islam can’t claim OBC status: HC, 2026==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/a-convert-to-islam-cannot-claim-the-status-of-backward-class-madras-hc/articleshow/132022622.cms Kaushik Kannan, June 28, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Madurai: Holding that a convert to Islam cannot claim the status of Backward Class Muslim, Madras high court struck down a 2024 govt order (GO) which allows persons from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes to be treated as Backward Class Muslims after conversion to Islam.The court was hearing the petition filed in 2022 by N Sameer Ahamed of Tuticorin district.
		+
		+	The petitioner was born to a Hindu couple in 1993 and was named as Paramasivam. In 2015, the petitioner embraced Islam and also changed his name to Sameer Ahamed. He married a woman as per Islamic rites and customs in 2016 and has two children. He applied for a community certificate certifying him as ‘Muslim Lebbai’ (BC Muslim). The petitioner claims to follow the faith of Lebbai Muslims. His application was rejected by the Kayathar tahsildar. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present petition.
		+
		+	The petitioner stated that as per the 2024 GO a convert to Islam from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities or Scheduled Castes may be treated as BC Muslim for availing the benefit of reservation and on such conversion, he may be issued with community certificate as belonging to one of the notified seven sects.
		+
		+	The state submitted that a convert from a forward community to Islam would not get the BC Muslim tag. Only those who already enjoyed the benefit of reservation would not lose it on account of conversion to Islam.A division bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice P B Balaji observed that as early as in 1951, the first bench of the court held that when a Hindu gets converted to Islam, he becomes just a Mussalman and his place in Muslim society is not determined by the caste to which he belonged before his conversion. The decision was also approved by the Supreme Court.
		+
		+	The judges observed, “The Christian missionaries as well as Islamic preachers harangued through decades and centuries that their religions offer social equality unlike Hinduism which has caste as its inherent feature. Having taken such a stand for effecting conversions, it is disingenuous to claim that there is hierarchy in Islam also. In our respectful view, categorising certain sects as Backward and the remaining as Forward is antithetical to Quranic injunctions.”“Islam seeks to establish an egalitarian society. Everyone is equal in the eye of God. There is no social hierarchy. Be that as it may, due to historical reasons, the Islamic society is also stratified into various communities. One can even boldly remark that they are akin to caste in Hinduism. Just as caste is determined by birth, one is a Rowther or Marakkayar or Deccani Muslim by birth alone. It is ridiculous to suggest that one can be converted into a Rowther Muslim,” the judges observed.
		+
		+	The judges observed that when the proposition laid down by the division bench is holding the field, it cannot be undone by issuing a mere GO. When a division bench held that a convert to Islam becomes just a Mussalman, it is not open to state govt to issue a GO undermining the said decision. That is exactly what the govt has done by recognising that there can be conversion to any one of the seven sects of Muslims identified as Backward Class Muslim.
		+
		+	The sheer arbitrariness of the GO becomes manifest for one more reason. The Backward Classes Commission’s recommendation as well as GO provide for accommodating BC/MBC/DNC/SC convertees in any one of the seven slots. In other words, a SC who is at the bottom-most rung of the social ladder is put on par with a BC. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that OBCs and SCs form separate categories.
		+
		+	Just for the sake of ensuring that the converts to Islam continue to enjoy some form of reservation benefit, such a bunching has been done by state govt. This exposes the inherent flaw in the approach adopted by the govt, the judges observed.The judges observed that we have no option but to conclude that only to undo the judgments of the court, has the govt come out with an innovation that is not only unconstitutional but also un-Islamic. Once we find that the GO is illegal, it is our bounden judicial duty to declare it to be so. We accordingly declare that the said GO is unconstitutional.
		+
		+	The order passed by the Kayathar tahsildar is sustained. “As a corollary, we hold that a convert to Islam cannot claim the status of Backward Class Muslim. He is only a Muslim and that’s all there is to it,” the judges observed and disposed of the petition.

	[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG		[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG

@@ Line 467: / Line 467: @@
 The first bench said: “There is no suggestion in the affidavit that she has abandoned her faith or that she has embraced Christianity. It is equally possible that she, as a part of a family, may accompany her husband and children for Sunday matins, but the mere fact that a person goes to church does not mean that such person has altogether abandoned the original faith to which such person was born”.
 ==Stop SC benefits to converted Christians, HC==
@@ Line 484: / Line 500: @@
 A witness in the case alleged that Sahani ridiculed the Hindu faith by claiming it offered no respect due to caste hierarchies, whereas embracing Christianity would lead to “jobs, business growth and financial benefits from the missionaries”.
  HC mentioned a recent Supreme Court judgment — C Selvarani Vs special secretary-cum-district collector 2024 — in which the bench held that a person ceased to belong to a particular caste after converting to Christianity.
 [[Category:Government|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG

@@ Line 218: / Line 218: @@
 The court said it was held that persons from backward classes who occupied posts in higher services like IAS, IPS had reached a higher level of social advancement and economic status and were not entitled to be treated as backward.
-[[Category:Government|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)
+====SC reiterates in 2026====
-CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)]]
+[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/husband-or-parents-income-for-obc-creamy-layer-sc-to-rule/articleshow/128864106.cms Dhananjay Mahapatra, March 13, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
 [[Category:India|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)
-CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)]]
+NEW DELHI: To determine whether an OBC woman candidate came within the creamy layer to be disentitled from reservation in govt employment, what should be taken into consideration - income of her husband or that of her parents? Supreme Court has agreed to examine this question.
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)
-CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)]]
+The woman, aspiring to become a judicial officer in Karnataka, belongs to the Hindu Namadhari community which is under II-A of reserved category. In April 2018, she married a man who belongs to III-B of reserved category, and has been residing separately from her parents since then. She has applied for the post of civil judge, where six posts out of 57 are reserved for candidates belonging to category II-A.
 [[Category:Name|ALPHABETCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)
-CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)]]
+After her selection, she sought verification of her caste certificate and issuance of 'Sindhutva' certificate based on her husband's income. The district caste and income verification committee rejected her application saying she belonged to the creamy layer owing to the quantum of her parent's income.Her mother had retired as a district judge from Karnataka judicial service, and her father retired as assistant conservator of forest. She contended before Karnataka HC that eligibility of a married woman should be decided on her husband's income and not that of her parents. She said her husband's annual income put her out of the purview of creamy layer disqualification.The state govt had argued that pension of parents should also be considered for this purpose. The HC had rejected her claim and ruled that the pension of her parents would also be considered as family income.
 [[Category:Pages with broken file links|CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)
-CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGA]]
+Arguing her appeal against the HC decision, senior advocate Sanjay M Nuli told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi on Wednesday that the appeal raised a question of law - whether the income of the husband or the income of the parents was to be considered for determining creamy layer of a married woman candidate and, if the income of the parents was to be considered, whether the pension of the parents was to be considered as income or not?
 ==2018: PSU (creamy layer) wards do not get reservation in civil services==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 24 March 2026
Line 3,079:		Line 3,079:

	[[Sons of the soil/ local job-seekers: 'reservations'/ quotas for: India]]		[[Sons of the soil/ local job-seekers: 'reservations'/ quotas for: India]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:India\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, IND
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGA
		+	]]

	[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG		[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 24 March 2026
Line 561:		Line 561:

	Justice Amrita Sinha, however, noted that the petitioner had marked herself as areserved category candidate while filling the form and had submitted Rs 200, a fee meant for that category. The judge referred to her Nov 27 order, in which the court had held that once a candidate’s category was final, authorities could not “change it suo motu”.		Justice Amrita Sinha, however, noted that the petitioner had marked herself as areserved category candidate while filling the form and had submitted Rs 200, a fee meant for that category. The judge referred to her Nov 27 order, in which the court had held that once a candidate’s category was final, authorities could not “change it suo motu”.
		+
		+	==SC Judgement of 2025==
		+	[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/general-category-candidates-merit-10453167/?ref=explained_pg Amaal Sheikh, January 4, 2026: ''The Indian Express'']
		+
		+
		+	The Supreme Court last month held that a recruitment authority cannot exclude a candidate from consideration for open category posts solely because they belong to a reserved category, if they have secured marks above the general cut-off. Such exclusion, the court said, offends the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
		+
		+	Upholding a Rajasthan High Court ruling, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih clarified that the open or general category is not a closed compartment reserved for candidates of a particular social group. It is a pool open to all candidates on a merit basis. Treating it otherwise, the court held, risks converting affirmative action into a form of exclusion.
		+
		+	''' The recruitment framework '''
		+
		+	The case stemmed from an August 2022 notification issued under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, and the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. A total of 2,756 vacancies for the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade II were advertised across the High Court, district courts, and the judicial academy.
		+
		+	The selection process had two stages: a written examination carrying 300 marks, followed by a computer-based typing test of 100 marks. Candidates who cleared the written examination were to be shortlisted for the second stage to the extent of five times the number of vacancies, with final selection based on aggregate marks from both stages.
		+
		+	When the written examination results were declared in May 2023, the recruiting authority prepared category-wise shortlists for the typing test. The cut-off for the general category was around 196 marks. However, several reserved categories had significantly higher cut-offs, in some cases exceeding 220 marks.
		+
		+	The effect of this method was stark. Candidates from reserved categories who had scored above the general cut-off, but below the higher cut-offs prescribed for their own categories, were excluded from the shortlist altogether. Despite outperforming many candidates who were shortlisted under the general category, they were denied the opportunity to appear for the typing test.
		+
		+	''' What the High Court held '''
		+
		+	A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court was careful to draw the limits of its intervention. It did not strike down the reservation framework, nor did it hold that category-wise shortlisting was impermissible as a rule. The issue, the court said, was when and how category segregation was applied.
		+
		+
		+	Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment, while Article 16(4) permits reservation as an exception to address structural disadvantage. Article 14 underpins both by prohibiting arbitrary classification.
		+
		+	The problem arose, the court held, when the general or open category was treated as a compartment meant exclusively for general category candidates at the shortlisting stage. Once a candidate, regardless of category, crossed the general cut-off, excluding them from consideration for open posts amounted to denying equality of opportunity.
		+
		+	“The right of a candidate belonging to reserve category, who has proved to be more meritorious to be placed in the Open category list, is not a rule of reservation, but a postulate of equality based on merit,” the High Court said. Confining such a candidate to their reserved slot, it added, would amount to discrimination based solely on social identity.
		+
		+	The High Court directed that the shortlists be reworked by first preparing a general/open category list purely on merit, including reserved category candidates who had crossed the general cut-off, and only thereafter drawing up reserved category lists from the remaining candidates.
		+
		+	''' The challenge before the Supreme Court '''
		+
		+	Before the Supreme Court, the High Court administration advanced three principal arguments. First, that candidates who had participated in the recruitment process were estopped from challenging it later. Second, allowing reserved category candidates to be considered in the open category at the shortlisting stage amounted to giving them a “double benefit”. Third, that precedents on “migration” of reserved category candidates apply only at the final stage of selection, not at intermediate stages.
		+
		+	The Supreme Court rejected all three, though on carefully delimited grounds.
		+
		+	On estoppel, the apex court held that participation amounts to acceptance of the procedure as notified, but not of an illegality that emerges only in its application. The court noted that the candidates could not have anticipated a situation where securing higher marks would result in exclusion.
		+
		+	“Participation of a candidate in a selection process implies acceptance of the prescribed procedure, but not of any illegality in the conduct of the said procedure or constitutional infirmity underlying it,” the Bench observed, concluding that the High Court was correct in entertaining the writ petitions once the defect became apparent after the declaration of results.
		+
		+	''' Is the open category a quota? '''
		+
		+	At the heart of the judgment lies a clear constitutional proposition — the open category is not a quota.
		+
		+	Agreeing with the High Court, the Supreme Court held that unreserved posts are available to all candidates based solely on merit. Reservation operates only in relation to earmarked posts; it does not permit the exclusion of candidates from open posts because of their social category.
		+
		+	“The open category is not a ‘quota’, but rather available to all,” the court said. “The only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit.”
		+
		+	Drawing from earlier Constitution Bench decisions, including Indra Sawhney and the 2021 ruling in Saurav Yadav, the court reiterated that a meritorious reserved category candidate who qualifies on open merit cannot be denied consideration for unreserved vacancies.
		+
		+	Treating the open category as meant only for non-reserved candidates, the Court warned, turns it into a form of “communal reservation” and would amount to compartmentalisation incompatible with Articles 14 and 16.
		+
		+	''' No “double benefit” '''
		+
		+	The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that reserved category candidates were receiving a double benefit.
		+	A candidate avails a reservation, the court clarified, only when a concession or relaxation, such as lower qualifying marks or age limits, is applied. Mere identification as belonging to a reserved category does not amount to availing of the reservation.
		+
		+	Where a candidate secures marks above the General cut-off without any relaxation, their inclusion in the open category flows from merit, not reservation. “The premise underlying the argument of potentially conferring ‘double benefit’ to the candidates of the reserved category proceeds on an erroneous assumption that a reserved category candidate is necessarily availing the benefit of reservation at more than one/every stage of a multi-tier process,” the court held.
		+
		+	''' What about “migration”? '''
		+
		+	The court then turned to the question of migration, the principle under which reserved category candidates who score high enough are adjusted against open category vacancies.
		+
		+	Earlier rulings had confined migration to the final stage of selection, largely because those cases involved preliminary or screening examinations whose marks were not carried forward. In such situations, exclusion at an intermediate stage was reversible.
		+
		+	The present case, however, was different. The written examination accounted for 300 out of 400 marks and formed a substantive part of the final assessment. Exclusion at this stage permanently foreclosed consideration.
		+
		+	Once a candidate crossed the General cut-off at such a decisive stage, the court said, there was no question of “migration” at all. The Court said this is better understood as a “merit induced shift” where the candidate isn’t moving categories later, but competing in the open category on merit from the very start.
		+
		+	''' Courts directions '''
		+
		+	The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directions on how the selection process should be corrected. At the shortlisting stage following the written examination, all candidates must be assessed together on marks alone, including those from reserved categories. Only after the open merit list is drawn should the reserved category lists be prepared from the remaining candidates.
		+
		+	The court also stressed that merit cannot become a penalty; a reserved category candidate who qualifies on open merit cannot be pushed into an unreserved slot if that means losing a better post or posting available within their quota. This ensures that “reservation functions as a means of inclusion rather than an instrument of disadvantage,” the court said.
		+
		+	While acknowledging that revisiting the lists could disturb appointments already made, the judges said any correction must be carried out with minimal administrative disruption.

	[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG		[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG

@@ Line 2,197: / Line 2,197: @@
  “It is true that in rare circumstances a woman acquires her husband’s caste provided she pleads and proves her admission to his community by social acceptance. But the petitioner did not make out this case,” Justice Krishna S Dixit said, dismissing the petition filed by MG Archana, a member of Balekoppa Grama Panchayat representing a constituency reserved for ST.
  TNN
 [[Category:Government|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 15 December 2025
Line 2,988:		Line 2,988:

	[[Sons of the soil/ local job-seekers: 'reservations'/ quotas for: India]]		[[Sons of the soil/ local job-seekers: 'reservations'/ quotas for: India]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:India\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, IND
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGA
		+	]]

	[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG		[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:48, 15 December 2025
Line 552:		Line 552:

	A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan granted relief to petitioners from SC/ST/OBC categories who were not given MBBS admission under Unreserved (UR) Category Government School (GS) quota in MP for 2023-24 despite being more meritorious, having scored higher marks in the entrance exam than those who were eventually admitted. TNN		A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan granted relief to petitioners from SC/ST/OBC categories who were not given MBBS admission under Unreserved (UR) Category Government School (GS) quota in MP for 2023-24 despite being more meritorious, having scored higher marks in the entrance exam than those who were eventually admitted. TNN
		+
		+	==‘High score & upgrade to general category won’t erode quota perks’==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=03_12_2025_028_003_cap_TOI Subrata Chattoraj, TNN, Dec 3, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Kolkata: Even if a candidate under the reserved category scored higher than the cut-off marks and was upgraded to general category, s/he would continue to enjoy benefits of the former category, Calcutta High Court held.
		+
		+	The directive came after an SSC candidate, who made it to the first list of the 2025 SLST exam, moved high court to restore her SC status even if she was upgraded to general category.  SSC senior counsel Kalyan Bandyopadhyay sought HC’s permission to upgrade the candidate to the general category contending that another SC candidate with lower marks would miss the opportunity of being considered if the petitioner wanted to restore her status. Bandyopadhyay argued that the idea of reservation was meant for the welfare of a community and not for an individual.
		+
		+	Justice Amrita Sinha, however, noted that the petitioner had marked herself as areserved category candidate while filling the form and had submitted Rs 200, a fee meant for that category. The judge referred to her Nov 27 order, in which the court had held that once a candidate’s category was final, authorities could not “change it suo motu”.

	[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG		[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 15 December 2025
Line 455:		Line 455:
	The first bench said: “There is no suggestion in the affidavit that she has abandoned her faith or that she has embraced Christianity. It is equally possible that she, as a part of a family, may accompany her husband and children for Sunday matins, but the mere fact that a person goes to church does not mean that such person has altogether abandoned the original faith to which such person was born”.		The first bench said: “There is no suggestion in the affidavit that she has abandoned her faith or that she has embraced Christianity. It is equally possible that she, as a part of a family, may accompany her husband and children for Sunday matins, but the mere fact that a person goes to church does not mean that such person has altogether abandoned the original faith to which such person was born”.

		+	==Stop SC benefits to converted Christians, HC==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=03_12_2025_028_002_cap_TOI Rajesh Kumar Pandey, TNN, Dec 3, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Prayagraj: Allahabad high court has directed the UP govt to ensure that anyone who converts to Christianity automatically forfeits all Scheduled Caste benefits, failing which it would be construed as a “fraud on the Constitution and contrary to the ethos of reservation policies”.
		+	Justice Praveen Kumar Giri’s Nov 21 order cites Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, specifying that nobody other than a Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist can be deemed a member of an SC community.
		+
		+	The court directed the principal secretary of the minorities welfare department to take appropriate steps to ensure that the distinction between minority and SC status was strictly enforced.
		+
		+	The HC said retention of SC status after conversion would amount to fraudulently claiming benefits since there was no caste system in Christianity. It fixed a timeline of four months for all district magistrates to act in accordance with the law to identify and prevent such occurrences. Justice Giri passed the order while dismissing a plea filed by a man accused of “mocking Hindu deities” and promoting enmity.
		+
		+	The appellant, Jitendra Sahani, had petitioned the court to quash the chargesheet in the case on the grounds that he had sought permission from the authorities to “preach the words of Jesus Christ on my land”.
		+	Justice Giri noted that Sahani mentioned his religion as “Hindu” in his affidavit, although he had converted to Christianity. It tran-spired that the appellant was from the SC community before his conversion.
		+
		+	A witness in the case alleged that Sahani ridiculed the Hindu faith by claiming it offered no respect due to caste hierarchies, whereas embracing Christianity would lead to “jobs, business growth and financial benefits from the missionaries”.
		+	HC mentioned a recent Supreme Court judgment — C Selvarani Vs special secretary-cum-district collector 2024 — in which the bench held that a person ceased to belong to a particular caste after converting to Christianity.
		+
		+	[[Category:Government\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:India\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, IND
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGA
		+	]]

	=Change of state=		=Change of state=

@@ Line 406: / Line 406: @@
 A reserved category candidate, who has availed age relaxation in a selection process, cannot seek accommodation in or migration to general category seat at a later stage, the Supreme Court on Thursday held. It said Article 16(4) of the Constitution empowers a state to give reservation in appointments to any backward class of citizens, which in its opinion, is not adequately represented in the service there. A bench of justices S Abdul Nazeer and Indira Banerjee upheld the Gujarat high court verdict, which said candidates who got the benefit of age relaxation by virtue of being from a reserved category are not entitled to be considered in general category and their cases are required to be considered for reserved category cases only. PTI
- “We have ensured speedy trial. The case was investigated and a chargesheet submitted on January 12, within 41days of the crime,” SP Ashok Kumar Singh said Special public prosecutor Shyamlal Yadav said it was probably the first instance of a Pocso court pronouncing capital punishment to someone convicted of raping a minor from the SC community.
+[[Category:Government|RCASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEGAL POSITION)CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS, INDIA (LEG
 =Change/ Conversion of religion and SC/ST status=