yEs a tribal man marries an ordinary woman childres are considered as SC, where as if a tribal woman marries an oc man children are not given any benefit of reservation. this is already decided by the Supreme COurt
On 13/06/2008, WILLIAM KISKU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Very fair indeed. > > Just a clarification on variation of the theme. Any > expert on this aspect of constitution can shed some > light, please. > > If a scheduled tribe MAN marries a NONSCHEDULED TRIBE > WOMAN, are the offsprings still eligible and can they > continue to enjoy the benefits of reservation ??? > > What happens if vice versa happens... ie, a SCHEDULED > TRIBE WOMAN MARRIES A NONSCHEDULED TRIBE MAN.?? > > William > --- Roopa Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <roopanin%40yahoo.co.in>> wrote: > > > A fair judgement. > > rgds > > roopa > > > > --- On Fri, 13/6/08, Gladson Dungdung > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <gladsonhrights%40gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > From: Gladson Dungdung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<gladsonhrights%40gmail.com> > > > > Subject: [ =>> Jharkhand <<= ] HC dismisses plea > > against Tribal Christians' ST status > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <jharkhand%40yahoogroups.com> > > Date: Friday, 13 June, 2008, 4:14 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HC dismisses plea against Tribal Christians' ST > > status > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pioneer News Service | Ranchi > > > > > > The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday rejected the > > petitioners' plea that challenged the continuation > > of reservation and other privilege to Tribals who > > have converted to Christianity and other religions. > > > > > > > > > > > > In 2002, petitioner Karpara Hansda and wife of > > Sangram Besra had filed a PIL, followed by another > > writ by Baliram Marandi, in which they sought to > > debar Tribals converted to Christianity and other > > religions from availing the reservation and other > > benefits that are extended to all members of > > Scheduled Tribes as per the Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > Karpara Hansda contended that just as Scheduled > > Castes or Dalit Christians are denied reservations > > and other benefits and protections on conversion > > from Hinduism to another religion, so also should > > tribals who convert to Christianity should be denied > > such benefits and protections. > > > > > > > > > > > > The petitioner further tried to show that on > > conversion the converted tribals no longer adhere to > > many of their former traditions and culture and the > > difference is "in black and white", and since there > > is this loss or negation of culture and tradition > > they should no longer be regarded as Scheduled > > Tribes and hence they should not be given those > > benefits. > > > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, this year an intervener petition was also > > filed by Christopher Kispotta, a Christian and PC > > Murmu, a traditional faith person, opposing the > > contentions and prayers of the petitioners that > > converted Tribals are no longer members of Scheduled > > Tribes and hence no longer entitled to protections > > and benefits. > > > > > > > > > > > > The intervener petitioners on their petition > > submitted that Article 366 of the Constitution > > specifies Scheduled Tribes from existing tribes, > > which is that it builds on existing primordial > > identities of the tribes. > > > > > > > > > > > > The interveners also cited definitions of Tribals > > and indigenous peoples as defined in international > > legal texts such as the International Labour > > Organisation Convention 107 and a certain World Bank > > document, which comprehensively account for these > > communities. They also submitted that to deny > > converted Tribals ST status and benefits merely on > > change of religion to Christianity would be racist. > > > > > > > > > > > > Advocate for petitioner NK Sahani, Government's > > counsel Sumeet Gadodia and interveners' lawyer > > Ratnaker Bhengra made brief arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice MY Eqbal > > and Justice DK Sinha after hearing the arguments, > > and after referring to the 2004 Supreme Court > > judgement in State of Kerela verses Chandramohanan > > which lays down, "... as a broad proposition of law > > it cannot be accepted that merely by change of > > religion a person ceases to be a member of the > > Scheduled Tribe,...", rejected the contentions and > > prayers of the petitioners and dismissed the writs. > > http://www.dailypio neer.com/ indexn12. asp?main_ > > variable= RANCHI&file_name=Ranchi2% > > 2Etxt&counter_img= 2 > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jharkhand Network | Jharkhand.org. in/network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explore your hobbies and interests. Go to > http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/ > > William Kisku > > > -- Dr.K.V.K.Santhy Asst.Professor NALSAR University of Law Justice City, Shamirpet Hyderabad. 500-027 Mob.9848228707
