A Community Certificate Can Be Verified Even After Retirement; Protecting Benefits On A False Claim Is A Fraud On The Constitution: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has dismissed the petitions of a retired Chennai Port Trust employee whose Scheduled Tribe status was invalidated by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and whose full pension and terminal benefits were withheld. Following the Full Bench in R. Gurusamy and the Supreme Court in Jagdish Balaram Bahira, the Court held that a community certificate may be verified even after retirement and regardless of a pre-1995 appointment, and that protecting benefits secured on an invalidated claim would perpetuate a fraud on the Constitution.

Change Of Religion Does Not By Itself End Scheduled Tribe Status, But Continuing Tribal Identity Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court accepted that conversion does not automatically extinguish Scheduled Tribe status, which remains a question of fact, but dismissed a woman’s petitions after finding she had not produced material showing continuing Bhuiyan customs, community participation and acceptance on the dates of three land purchases.

Misuse By Some Cannot Cast Doubt On All: Supreme Court On Plea Challenging Northeast SC/ST Tax Exemption

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a creamy layer principle for income-tax exemption granted to Scheduled Tribes in the North Eastern Region. CJI Surya Kant-led Bench said the issue concerns legislation and allowed petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay to approach the parliamentary committee.

Smriti Mandhana’s Friend Files Case Against Palash Muchhal for Cheating and Caste Abuse, Alleges SC/ST Act Violations

Social worker Vignyan Mane filed a case in Sangli, Maharashtra, accusing music composer and filmmaker Palash Muchhal of cheating and committing offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Mane, a friend of Smriti Mandhana, submitted a complaint.

Lawyers Have Some Dignity and Cannot Be Treated Like Servants: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside JDA Terminations

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the Jaipur Development Authority’s termination of Assistant Advocates, stressing that lawyers must be treated with dignity. The Bench held their engagement cannot be at the authority’s whims and must follow reasonable procedures.

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on ‘Creamy Layer’ Exclusion for SC/ST Reservation

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to respond to pleas seeking clear criteria for excluding the creamy layer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from reservation benefits. The petitions rely on the 2024 Constitution Bench verdict allowing sub-classification within SCs and STs to ensure benefits reach the most backward groups.

We Know What’s Happening: Supreme Court To Hear Challenge Against UGC Rules On Caste Discrimination

Today, On 28th January, The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea challenging UGC’s new rules to prevent caste discrimination in educational institutions. CJI Surya Kant said, “We know what’s happening. Make sure defects are cured. We will list it.”

Creamy Layer in SC/ST Quota: Supreme Court Seeks Centre, States’ Views, Says ‘Not Hearing on Merits Yet’

The Supreme Court of India has granted six weeks to the Centre and States to file responses on a plea seeking exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations. The Court clarified that it is not examining the issue on merits and wants inputs from all stakeholders before proceeding further.

Should ‘Creamy Layer’ Apply to SC/ST Quota? Supreme Court Issues Notice on Major Reservation Challenge

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the “creamy layer” principle should be implemented in SC and ST reservations. A PIL argues that allowing affluent SC/ST candidates to avail quota benefits violates equality and defeats the purpose of social justice.

Waqf Amendment Act Order| Supreme Court To Correct Typographical Error: Paragraph 178 Referenced an Incorrect Section

The Supreme Court said it will correct a typographical mistake in its judgment on the Waqf Amendment Act order. It noted that “Paragraph 178 referenced an incorrect section,” after advocate Sneha Kalita flagged the error before the bench.