The Apex Court ruled that the benefit of the scheduled tribes conferred in one state is not same as in another state upon the consideration of the same person.
- The Appeal petition challenging the order of the lower court.
- The Chandigarh UT Government allotted houses to the applicants of STs who is residing in the UT at least three years as a condition and the respondent permanently residing in the Chandigarh for twenty years.
- The state of Rajasthan is his state of origin and belonged to the SC category in that state.
- The Chandigarh Housing Board did not allot the house for the respondent.
- The Civil Court ruled in the favour of the respondent and the Housing board approached the HC, the petition was dismissed.
The Court Opined that the right to migration is entailed to all the citizens and it cannot be curtailed. But the citizen did not carry his special rights from one state to another.
The Court Observed the scope of the right to equality and stated that the migrants were not permitted to carry their special rights is not violated the Article 14 of the Constitution. Because, every state had their own legitimacy of laws and it will be applicable to their residents.
Justice B V Nagarathana and Augutine stated that the president had the power to include any tribal community as ST with the consultation of concerned Governor under the Article 342 of the Constitution and Held that the respondent did not comes under the category of ST under the notification issued by the Chandigarh UT, so the respondent did not confer any special rights in the UT.
CASE NAME: Chandigarh Housing Board V. Tarsem Lal.
NAME: Viswa ganesh K, BALLB (Hons.), School of Excellence in Law, Dr. Ambedkar Law University, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments