The Karnatak High Court suggested that candidates would have to be attacked in the elections to declare any cases of calls that will be made by their caste or educational certificate and civil dispute, quasi-south authorities or administrative authorities to be available to one and all voting and opponents.
The Court also stated that the Indian Legal Commission would have to deal with this aspect of the announcement of calls for caste or an educational certificate, while attacking elections that are carried out under the provisions of the 1951 People Act.
Instructions
The court, both civil and criminal, quasi-sisters or administrative bodies, said the court said it was to prepare the relevant instructions for the state government that the competitors would have to provide details of all litigation and decided that the candidate was involved in the civil and criminal matter to be available to the public.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made these observations and at the same time rejected the petition the Prabhu Chavan, the Mla of the Aurada Election District. He attacked a new announcement issued by the District Verification Committee for the Verification of the District Cast (DCVC) on the basis of an action filed by Narasing, who attacked Mr. Chavan and questioned his caste certificate.
As Mr. Chavan claimed that the calls for his caste certificate, such as the Lambani community, which is planned caste (SC), was rejected several times earlier, the court stated that in any of the earlier rounds of court proceedings were decided, but was rejected for technical reasons. The court also noted that Mr. Narasing was not aware of earlier court disputes regarding the caste certificate of Mr. Chavan.
Place of birth
On Content That That Mr. Chavan Is Not Entitled for SC Certificate as He Was Born in Maharashtra, Where The Lambani Community is Not Under SC Category, The High Court, Citation APEX Court’s Judgments, Point Out That ”and Person Born UPON MIGRATION TO ANOTHER STATE WHEREIN THAT CASTE OR Community is notified as sc or st, Will not be entitled to the benefit grant such a sculpture of SC or ST in the state in which the person moved. ”
However, as Mr. Chavan claimed that he was born in Karnataka, the High Court stated that DCVC must be decided on this questionable issue with regard to the peak judgments and the court cannot decide this dispute.
Published – 26 March 2025 20:21
