Passage 1
The Supreme Court has quashed a [1] notification of the Bihar government by which it had deleted [2] caste from the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) and merged it with ‘Pan/Sawasi’ caste in the Scheduled Castes list. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra said the state government had no competence or authority to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution. The Scheduled Castes list specified under the notification under Clause-1 can be amended or altered only by a law made by the Parliament, the bench said. It said as per Article 341 neither the central government, nor the President can make any amendments or changes in the notification issued under Clause-1 without a law made by the Parliament, specifying the castes in relation to the states or Union territory, as the case may be.
“We have no hesitation in holding that the resolution dated July 1, 2015 was patently illegal, erroneous as the state government had no competence/ authority/ power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution,” the bench said in its verdict pronounced on Monday. It added that the submission of the state government that resolution dated July 1, 2015 was only clarificatory is not worth considering for a moment and deserves outright rejection.
The bench said the Bihar government knew very well that it had no authority and had accordingly forwarded its request to the Centre in 2011 for inclusion of [2] in the list of Scheduled Castes as a synonym of ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’. “The said request was not accepted and returned for further comments/ justification/review. Ignoring the same, the State proceeded to issue the circular dated July 1, 2015,” it said. The bench said the state government may be justified in deleting [2] from the Extremely Backward Classes list on the recommendation of the State Backward Commission, but beyond that to merge [2] with ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’ under Entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes was nothing short of “mala fide exercise for whatever good, bad or indifferent reasons, the State may have thought at that moment”. It said whether synonymous or not, any inclusion or exclusion of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within the castes, races or tribes has to be done by law made by the Parliament, and not by any other mode or manner. “The submission that the recommendation of the Commission for Extremely Backward Classes was binding on the State, is not a question to be determined here, inasmuch as, even if we accept the submission, such recommendation could relate only to the EBC. Whether or not to include or exclude any caste in the list of EBC would be within the domain of the Commission,” it said. The bench further stated that the Commission would have no jurisdiction to make recommendation with respect to any caste being included in the Scheduled Castes lists and, even if it makes such a recommendation, right or wrong, the State has no authority to proceed to implement the same when it was fully aware that the Constitution does not permit it to do so.
Source: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/state-government-has-no-aut
Get CLAT Online Coaching!
Passage 2
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that challenged a bill recently introduced by the Karnataka government to reserve 50 to 75 per cent of private sector jobs for Kannadigas [Dr. Amirthalakshmi R v. State of Karnataka and ors].
The Court refused to entertain the petition after noting that the bill was yet to be enacted into law. The Court, therefore, termed the petition premature and dismissed it on this ground alone, without expressing any opinion on the merits of such a challenge. The bill in focus is being mooted to provide reservations for locals under the Kannadiga quota in private sector jobs including “industries, factories, and other establishments” in Karnataka. The bill, styled Karnataka State Government Employment of Local Candidates in Industries Bill, 2024 mandates 50 per cent reservation for locals in managerial positions and [1] per cent in non-managerial posts. After controversy arose over this move, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah clarified through a July 17 post on X (formerly Twitter) that the bill is still in its preparation stage and that a comprehensive discussion will be held at the next cabinet meeting before a final decision is made. The petitioner before the High Court had called for the withdrawal of the bill until constitutional challenges arising from such a move were framed by the Court and resolved. As an interim prayer, the petitioner had urged the Court to restrain the State from enacting the bill. The counsel added that the Kannadiga Quota bill may go against the intent of providing benefits for local candidates as well.
However, the Court did not hear detailed submissions. After examining the case papers, the Bench proceeded to dismiss the petition as premature.
“It was a legislative enactment that was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court … (Bill) has not assumed the character of law. The petition is currently premature. On the aforesaid ground alone, without going into the merits of the contentions of petitioner and without expressing any opinion on merits … petition is dismissed,” the Court said.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/karnataka-high-court
