Datasets:

divi212

/

india-supreme-court-audio

like 0

judges, we consider as coming close to the desirability of looking at high standards of conduct where elected members of legislatures and the needs of parliamentary intervention in that regard. Your brief glance, at deliberations and debates across different jurisdictions and the scope of Parliamentary immunity and the incompatibilities of the conduct which is offensive, undesirable, unlawful, etc. demonstrate the need for raising the

Agreement that has to be seen under 11. In other words, Section 7, is it complied with on the face of an ex facie? If there's again… even on that, if there's a dispute to be gone into, it will go to the Tribunal. But an ex facie, Your Lordships find there's just no agreement. Of course. And para 244.5 and para 146, they all go on the basis of this kind of

state to sub- classify a class already recognized by the constitution and allot a portion of the already reserved quota amongst the state created sub-class within the list of Scheduled Castes. From the discussion here and above, it is clear that primary object of the impugned enactment is to create groups of sub-castes in the list of Scheduled Castes, applicable to the state and in our

timelines which have been indicated by the Respondents are a little ambitious. I don't think you can hear arguments in response for close to 17, 16-17 days, which is what it comes down to. So, I think all of you will need to sit down together. Three days response, three days response, seventeen days, My Lords. I forgot in my defence, I thought we would be opening, because the question was, was Kesoram, was

entirely artificial'. If Your Lordships will see the extracts there at page 8. We have made reference and it's broader comparison. It is there as Annexure 6, page 99. Page 99 of the same. Annexure 6 is the comparison of the Prevention of

25, which is one of the provisions relied upon by the Respondents. Some of them are Appellants but I'm using this expression generically on the other side, 'Any rent, royalty, tax fee or other sum due to the government under this act or the rules made there under or under terms and conditions of mineral concessions, may own a certificate of such

application vis-a-vis delimitation. Because it occurs subsequently... This can't be in the form of an application in a petition. See in a matter [UNCLEAR] this becomes too complex to get into. You need to confine to what is there before us. I follow and bow down. But I will only say this, My Lords, and Your Lordships may just... I will only say this that at present, not only have these two the State been turned into two Union

25. It was necessary to have the word 'tax' in Section 25 in a Recovery Provision alone because 1948 Act had empowered the Parliament to... Central Government to impose tax also. And it was possible that this due when this new Act comes into force. So, the recoveries would still have to be made up with respect to those tax dues and

authorized by it in this behalf, without obtaining in either case the prior permission of such political party, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within 15 days from the date of such voting or abstention. So My Lord, what's important here to note is that he cannot vote contrary to any

Wherever there is there was a time limit of 26th January 1950. Make an application so that people can authenticate on that day. So that's a fundamental distinction which the Chief Justice, pointed out, and my submission is that 6A(2) And Article 6 has a completely different scheme. All right, then? With this may I respectfully

minute. It is an order My Lord. Kindly see.... Impleadment of a political party.... Alright. Insofar as the impleadments are concerned, please take it that we are not going to shut anybody out like this. Very well. But everybody will have to ration time. Yes. Because once the first two or three counsel have argued the matter, then the others know what has been covered, what ground has been

otherwise of a Government depends or in the only known case in our constitutional history, My Lords, of impeachment of a Judge of this Court, it's the abstention, which made the difference. And there of course, it was a Whip of the ruling party, so the ruling party en bloc abstained. But in a given

House acts independently of the political party. That's the central issue. Because I will, My Lords, while I go through the facts before Your Lordships,

negative Competence-Competence into express and implied, and that is correct, because very often a Section will not actually say a court should not interfere. But an interpretation of that Section, given Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, leads to an implied negative Competence-Competence, or a stepping back, as it were of Your Lordships at the first stage. Because the

judgment is by Justice N. Santosh Hegde, on behalf of himself and Justice Variava and Justice Singh. My Lord, what brought this matter to the Supreme Court, was the leave granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The issue emanated from a report of a commission headed by Justice Ramachandra Raju. And the scope of this commission was to identify, that within the list

part of the same community engaged in the same vocation, which confers the same benefit amongst them as a caste. Why should they be given the benefit not from 76 but from 50 when Sikriband was entered as a Schedule Caste. Now Mr. Advocate General, we have seen why jurisprudentially you are saying that Chinnaiah is not a correct, has not interpreted the Constitution correctly because there's no question of inclusion or exclusion. That's right. 16(4) is

officer for that. Here I may just draw attention to 33(2)(b). There's an act of delegation with the Stamp Act itself envisages. if the High Court can delegate this function of examining and impounding to an officer, which includes an arbitrator. He is authorized to take evidence. In fact, my submissions deal with this very point, saying that all of this goes to the arbitrator if you read 33, 35 because what parties have done is that by consent...My Lords even in the terms of the Arbitration Act by

place in Shiv Sena in 2013. Then they took place in 2018, then they were due to take place in 2023. So, this only reflects that the last elections took place in 2018, and a letter was written to the Election Commission saying organizational elections of Shiv Sena were conducted on 23rd January 2018, at Mumbai and the information

needs to be looked at. We have seen the essence of your submissions. I'm grateful. Appreciating Your Lordship's concern for early finish, My Lord, I certainly... I'm sorry. My Lord, just one mentionable item, the chillness of the.... I'm sorry for that.

fact... [UNCLEAR] endeavour to do so and like that ,My Lords. And even when it is said, My Lords, in clear terms, yet Your Lordships consider it to be directory. It's not that a judgment will be set aside merely because it has transgressed 365 days and comes after 367 days. That's why I was compelled, My Lords... these solutions, let's not

backbone of a democratic setup. The law is meant to eradicate the same. When one analyses the exercise of choice NOTA in the voting process of the Council of States where open ballot is permissible and secrecy of transcription@teres.ai voting has no room and further, where this discipline of the political party/parties matters, it is clear that that such choice will have a negative impact.' That's all My Lords that I

opinion. And 312, 412, 415. Minority? My Lord, minority comprises of two independent opinions of Justice Rastogi and Justice Roy. My Lord, Justice Rastogi's opinion is to be found in paragraphs 292 and 295, which would be PDF 436 of Volume 5-A and Justice Roy's opinion, Lordships may kindly note paragraphs 312, 412 and 415.

leader of the House because they were the treasury benches. So Eknath Shinde was the leader of the House and he was removed from his position of leadership by a decision of the party and the Deputy Speaker was told about it and he accepted it. In the larger interest of the party, it was thought fit to call for another legislative party meeting to give one more opportunity to the MLAs who were absent in the meeting on 21st June to

always amenable to protection within the court. My submission is slightly different My Lords. My submission is that, since this apprehension of misuse, has been at the root of the very grant of privilege and immunity from historical times, it's not that the court is today giving some fresh chit or blanket of

feasible length for fence is about 3922 kilometres and non-feasible length is about 174.5 km. When there is a mountainous terrain or river, there is no fencing possible. To secure the Indo- Bangladesh border, Government of India has taken multipronged step to complete the remaining length, either by fencing,

distribute property. And any construction that we arrive at of 39(b) in my respectful submission must take into account this context. My Lord, having said that, may I request Your Lordships just to see the section with me for a minute. I just want to point out to Your Lordships that there are three material parts of this section, but the first is what is to be

simply about that Constituent Assembly. It is about the promises of our Constitution Assembly. It is about that legacy of interpretation that My Lords started four decades ago. That is what this founding moment is about. That is what this model of federalism is about. That is what the intricacies of this model of federalism that embraced this version of what Ms.

obviously, it follows the same thing. Now, in Entry 8, the word "intoxicating liquor", is there they have followed that. In Entry 51 or Entry 40, List II of the Government of India Act and Entry 51, List II of the Constitution, they have followed the same pattern as in... Entry 84, List I. Entry 84. First it is

temporary and Special Provisions. 370 has 3 temporary transitory positions. My Lord, there is a history behind that why it was called 370 temporary. Because either they were bound by our misfortune. Our Prime Minister had

page 9.I was just reading from Neeraj Dutta, the bold portion dealing with Section 7. Just above. Yes. 'Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offense, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver, which is accepted by the public servant, which would make it an offense. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant, when accepted by the bribe giver, and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the

subjects it to caprice and arbitrary will of the administrative authority. There is justification for this argument and the requirement of Section 26 of the Act imposing the same conditions for the renewal of license, as for the initial grant, appears to be unreasonable. In our opinion, so and so are inextricably bound up with the other clauses in Section 27(6) and form part of a single scheme. The result is, that clauses so and so are not severable, and the entire

feeling better? You are the Chief Justice in this country but your sense of empathy is phenomenal. Before the learned

8.

15, PDF page 728. transcription@teres.ai 15? PDF page? 728. My Lords. Your Lordships will see this is important. Same compilation. Yes. This is important because this is Dated 25th November

stock. If it is a preservation housing stock, how are they referring it to 39(b)? Because, one of the tests that Your Lordships have time and again said, we will see whether there's a nexus between 39(b) and the enactment. Here I ask myself this question. It has a nexus with

ultimately which and the English laws, but just to give Your Lordships a bird's eye view of how the Judgment proceeds. Then, after discussing the English position in detail at page 734, the Australian judgment My Lord, R vs White is

bottom. 'If anything, some of the important provisions to which we have already referred shows that the final power in almost every matter of importance was in the Lord Rector and the Governor General and Council.' Now this is misunderstanding the template. The Rector disappeared and became the Visitor. Do visitors have that kind of right to

See para 1 at page 4. So the way it is arranged it... from pages. Yeah, if I can see that index pagination, and I'll just show Your Lordships. I won't be reading all of this. There's a lot of it. The second serial number, 'Relevant excerpts in support of written submissions'. So that's where I have extracts of the relevant judgment of the statute there. And from the first two pages, written submissions, if you just click on the bold portion, it will take you

third as held in Vidya Drolia that o long as an Arbitration Agreement satisfies the requirements of the Arbitration Act, ex facie by adopting the prima facie test there's no question of a court holding up the arbitral process by entering into an examination of whether duty is paid, whether it's under-stamped, under which article it falls, et cetera, et cetera. The fourth, since a

party. This is all this argument, My Lords, that was made. Freedom of expression. We have a right. We feel that your policies are wrong. You have deviated from ideology. You knew the ideology, you knew that he is the Paksh Pramukh. You knew what he stands for, you took his ticket, you were a minister, you never raised your voice. And suddenly in Assam, you go to say that, no, no, we are very, very

voidness. That's not what Parliament intended. Now if My Lords, kindly go on, it'll be very quick with this My Lords, page 19 of these submissions of mine, I've set out reference to a Judgment of Your Lordships on this. Para 44 of my

would then probably have to describe myself as resident if I pack my bag, etc. on day two. Intention to reside. Yes, but here, therefore, you have a situation. My Lord, please. This is in the context of illegal migrants, it's not an ordinary person translocating within the country, etc. And so, having regard to that factual matrix, absent any criteria, any guidance, I believe it is constitutionally informed in terms of an

producing countries and compared with Indian position. Mongolia is 31.30% effective tax rate. Similarly, Canada, et cetera, et cetera, last two are India New Mines, that is after 2015, 59.84%. And Old Mines - 63.97%. This is the taxation structure as compared to Global and this includes all,

competing for those posts. Right? Yet our constitutional jurisprudence permits it. Why? Because we treat as, we treat equality as a substantive equality, not formal equality. That's right. Therefore, post N.M Thomas, we have now developed jurisprudence to the effect that,

11(6A) to an ex facie examination. This is more so because of the next point which has been argued. I'll just

follows, "The fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the Centre vis-à-vis the States does not mean that States are mere appendages of the Centre." My Lord, may I pause here My Lord, I recall what Your Lordship had observed in the Delhi matter, My Lord, "States are not satellites and appendages of the Centre. They have their own unique

right in looking at those Latin terms, at the instance of preparation and at the instance of founding. Now My Lord, kindly come to the

left to its own? Why should we go here and there on this? Only to assist that conclusion, that if it's a regularizable curable defect, then Your Lordships, even in the context of other statutes such as FEMA, which also have a public policy connotation, have said the transaction is not voided. That's what para 88 says. The

lunch. << LUNCH BREAK >> Mr. Maninder Singh you are not the only personal who is feeling hot in the court. We agree with you. We have to start the ACs. Yes, My Lords. Mr. Maninder Singh, is it the heat of the

special provisions under Article 15 and for making reservations under Article 64, extends to the states. The power exercised by the President in relation to every state visa vis SC/ST has been smooth and by all accounts, there has been no resentment or friction. Once the community or the caste concerned is reflected in the list of one or the other State Union Territory, the extent of benefits to be

whether Entry 50, List II, is a specific Entry in relation to Entry 49, List II and would

field is covered. Fee is covered by the Central. Field. Fee. Field. It is a typo. Here it is a typo. That also is. As the field is covered.... As the field is covered by the central power under Entry 23 or Entry of List II, the impugned

also takes the mineral value, the value of the land. So therefore, the State must be clearly told, because who... otherwise will be every time doing something, every time My Lord there will be a challenge. That look, there's some connection with mineral land and mineral value. And for the last 20 years, the states are not able to, other states apart from Bengal not able to collect. This is lack of uniformity in fact. One state is

connection with anything said by him or a vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and thereby place such member above the law, would not only be repugnant to healthy functioning of Parliamentary democracy, but would be subversive of the rule of law, which is an essential part of the basic structure of the Constitution'. This is very important because we here have a written Constitution, unlike England. 'It is settled law, that while

served by propagating the same amongst non-members of the particular community. In our opinion, it is not possible to read this condition into Article 30, subclause 1. Then My Lords, page 62 comes the important pronouncement of the words "of their

issues that were framed once, so that we know the perspective in which you are arguing? The issues that were framed for reference to the Constitution. I can read those. Can we just do a quick recall before we... Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Yes

Item 701. Before my learned senior starts, there is a small request, regarding the scope of the reference. As Your Lordship have, now, broadly seen the papers. The reference is whether Article 30(1), the expression used 'establish and administer' is disjunctive or

Ramakrishnan called shared sovereign. That is part of India's federalist structure. Now, please see My Lords, may I take My Lords, to Section 4 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957. And the second proposition is this and it's in the note. The abrogation of Article 370 has vitiated the unique internal sovereignty guaranteed by both

16 uses ruling. There is a very distinct connotation in law between an examination and a ruling. A ruling implies a binding determination. Examination means a scrutiny. So the power of the court... the first look has been very beautifully put in para 126, is the first look is for examination. It's first level scrutiny. It's not rendering a binding

dignity because no opportunity or status without dignity is complete. You cannot give opportunity as charity because, charity takes away the dignity. There have to be provisions enacted and

another person. That's also possible? It depends on the terms of the lease My Lord, what is being... No, even before, forget the fact that there is a lease, can there be a situation where the surface rights vests in A and the right to minerals vests in somebody else? For instance, service rights vests in the private person and the right to minerals vests in the

looked into or delegated to arbitrator. There also, we've have not permitted them to expand the contour. Some of them have argued... Anyway, Your Lordships have followed my point now. So I'll just give you the points. So, the first point is We are giving it to you to fight another day on the curative petition. We are not dealing with that aspect. We are today, not...

Constitutional Court reviews state action only. If it impinges upon existing right and not because state action has not provided for a possible right or expectation howsoever desirable. So even if you go to the extent of saying 19(1)(a), in the context of knowing this is desirable, you probably will not fault it on that

added. And if you see Section-C, of that. In Article 164, of the Constitution after Clause-1, the following clauses shall be inserted namely, 1A, the total number of ministers including Chief Minister in the Council of Ministers in the state shall not exceed 15% of the total number of members of the legislative assembly of that State. Provided, the number of ministers including the Chief Minister shall not be less than twelve. Provided further, we are not concerned with that. transcription@teres.ai 1D, My Lords, a member of the Legislative

becomes subject to like Entry 24. So, what are we saying is that we are reading word 'subject to' in Entry 8 which perhaps it is not open to read. Then what is the meaning to be given to the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained' in Article 246(1)? I'll answer that. 'Notwithstanding' means in case the conflict is irreconcilable, harmoniously, then, in that

months of the order or within such further period, we are not concerned. If it doesn't, then it lapses. We are not concerned. Now, please come to My Lord, Form K. I don't think, My Lord, in my respectful

go to the Presidential Order in respect of any state, and this example will be laid bare as to what I'm trying to say. Now the issue is, why are they called Scheduled Caste? Because this word has become very generic. He's a Scheduled Caste. Why? Because, his caste for that particular area is contained in the Schedule. That's all. A Scheduled Caste is not a caste, as we commonly

Paragraph 15 come in? Paragraph 15 comes in only when there are two factions pursuant to a split. There is no case of a split. The case of a split happens My Lords, on the 18th July according to the petition before the Election Commission. We are dealing with

Special Bearer Bonds can sell such bonds, and without running any risk, disclose the consideration received by him as his white money. Because Section 4 Clause C being out of the way, he can account for the possession of such money by showing that he has received it as a consideration for sale of spatial bearer bonds. And so far as the purchaser is concerned, if he has paid the consideration out of his black money, he can claim the immunity granted in the Clause 3. Thus, the black money of the

question of balancing judicial time and the legislative intent and keeping it out of the system at the first instance. Nobody is saying it will not come back. Everything somehow at the 34 stage or somewhere may come back, but that's the larger issue. My Lords, I am deeply obliged. Thank You Mr. Banerji. Yes Mr. Khambata. I thought my learned friend would leave me 45

alarmism, My Lords, which is not rooted or grounded in reality. Now, see the actual figures at Para 9 My Lords, of the same affidavit. Yes. It is submitted... may I read that My Lords? Yes. It is submitted, that as per records

taxes so and so shall not exceed Rs. 2500 per annum. So, the framers where they found that the measures are overlapping and they wanted to protect it instead of eliminating it, they allowed it and said, here is the limit. So, there is ample indication in 276 and

Act, there'll be no question of such a problem at all. And Secondly, if the prima facie view, which was expressed by Your Lordship just now, a moment ago, is that if there is a designation by a High Court, then that's another way in which the entire problem may go. But I thought I should just mention to you that the Sri Krishna Committee when it made its recommendations, read this very provision differently, leaning on the earlier Law Commission report, which also took the

decide carry out the instructions of the leader when matters are in the House. There the leader doesn't come in. Chief Whip will say, we'll go to the leader and say, look, this is the issue before the House. How do we deal with it? Leader will discuss it with the Chief Whip. Chief Whip will communicate. That's how Parliamentary democracy works. Yes. But Your Lordship is absolutely right, it's a good point that Your Lordship have

even on law, even on law, you see, I was just, anyway I will now go on the Stamp Act, but I want Your Lordships to very seriously consider, because if you had in the future, if you have in the future, some judgment comes which XYZ doesn't like. Can the Chief .... The question I ask myself, is, can the Chief Justice of India, constitute a larger Bench, then just put it before that Bench without having a Live List or decide whether there's a

Arbitration Law, parliament can trench upon an act or a power which is left with the State Legislatures to impose or an exaction in the form of stamp duty. So Section 5, it would be very dangerous. I mean, there's a submission. It would be incorrect. Let me not say... Entry for arbitration... that is... Arbitration is, I

extent. That could be by a notification, if it is under law. Because one legislature is dealing with another legislature. The Central Legislature vis-a-vis with the State Legislature. So Central Legislature has to do it. It can't say that I'm delegating this power to the Government or some other authority or

regulated by a special set of rules and is not a business work or function of the Parliament. The premises where the election takes place is not determinative of the matter. What is not a function or the business of Parliament or the Legislature, [UNCLEAR] Articles 105(2) and 194(2). The protection extended in Articles 105(2) is a part of the larger scheme of protection and immunity to Parliament and its

Governor is not permissible under law. Because My Lordships concurrence affects the autonomy of the State. It's because of that reason, the concurrence is to be given by the duly elected government. It cannot be the Governor under Articles 93 or 356 of the Constitution. My Lordships the Article 3 of the Constitution says, view of the state. What happened in Jharkhand? Two years, three years

22 and I have referred those principles which I have evolved with case laws. And this case law, which is specified point wise buttress is what I'm arguing. But then eventually, what I

dealing with two categories of minerals. Therefore, if you see Clause number 'G'. It authorizes state to frame rules for even collection of royalty. Correct but for minor minerals. Yes,

take us? It doesn't take us anywhere. So he votes against the Whip and My Lords Gogawale is then appointed. He can't be appointed by the Speaker. And Gogawale - they have issued, Speaker has issued notice to us. Those notices can't be issued. I can't be subject to any disqualification proceedings. And my notice has been given by the

legislative body, without being impeded by any act of impression or impairment. Probably those good old days when [UNCLEAR] executive was a very important aspect to be looked into. It may also undergo some forms, metamorphosis today. The executive need not, cannot be probably directly impair A legislators function, but it can devise

concluded in paragraph 52. I'll just read para 52. Yes The criminal liability incurred by a Member of Parliament who has accepted bribe for speaking or giving vote in Parliament in a particular manner, thus arises independently of the making of the speech or giving of vote by the member, and the said liability cannot

Section 9 court from giving interim relief because under 17(2), the orders, our Arbitral Tribunal are given the force of law of orders of the court. Corresponding provision is 9(3). Section 11(6A) itself. Section 8 was amended in 2015 to include prima facie to bring it into

would suggest, is to see the consequence or the effect of that act. If that... I'm sorry. Yes, My Lord. To speak about the connectivity and context is one thing. And reformulating the scope and extent of the immunity is another

summarize whatever My Lord there is. It is summarized at various places. Your Lordships will come to page 54 of the Volume 1, written submissions. It's just two pages My Lords, I'll just place it. 54 in Volume 1. The majority view in NN Global, the

come to Entry 33. There is one interesting factor which Your Lordships may take into consideration here again which...

keeps it to itself and does mining, then it will pay a sum which is equivalent to royalty. One more Act, My Lord, then I'm done with this. This is IV(b). The The Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act,

signing of that agreement which happened the day before he took over as Chief Minister was done by Mr. Parthasarathy who was a famous diplomat, but also was the son of Gopalaswami Ayyangar. Many ways that you find overlaps throughout, but this history, I think shows and resonates how from then that day till now, the interpretation of 370 has been consistent without any

members of such other political party... that is they merge into that party or as the case may be of a new political party. Both of them may form a new politics party formed by such merger. So A merges with B or A and B merged together to form C. Form a new party. So therefore no disqualification. It's a merger of the political party. 'Or have not accepted the merger and opted to function as a

something which is a falsehood. Why did he make this speech? I sue you for damages for expressing this view in Parliament. Not permissible. Alright? So the immunity will attach. But look at it another way. Suppose somebody files a suit against a Member of Parliament, that by keeping quiet on such an important issue, you have made yourself liable to an action in court or an action for a civil

hear you on this. Leave it at that. Yes, Mr. Patwalia. May it please Your Lordship. My Lord, actually, in my respectful submission, what is really essential for Your Lordships to see is, what is the object and what is the purpose, for which this immunity has been

means public revenue due on land and includes water cess payable to the Government for water supplied or used for the irrigation of land but does not include any other cess or surcharge payable under Section 16. The explanation does not cover royalties, lease amount or other sum payable to the government in respect of land held direct from the government on lease or licence, which were included in the definition of land revenue under the Madras District Boards

laptops and iPads. If you have a record like 30 - 40,000 pages, it would have been

omitted to point out two things My Lords, before I come to this last part. Pages 8 and 9. Of the same submission? Of the same submission, My Lords. Without reading in detail, I'll just draw the court's attention. 11 I'll read out, 12 I won't

arbitrator, the arbitrator will take a call. And the consent. So therefore, as far as the second part of Section 33 is concerned, it doesn't arise because by consent you've said the Tribunal receives evidence. Now My Lords what about the first part? Every person having by law authority to receive evidence. Now, that is where Your Lordships has to consider the Arbitration Act and Section 11. There my

question, I thought that this is loud. No, no, no. Mr. Solicitor, a form in a statute can't really override either the statute or can nor it furnish an interpretation of a constitutional entry. The classical statement was by Justice Chinnappa Reddy in LIC vs Escorts, where the statutory form was shown to the court and say that, look, this is what permission means. It means that

continued presence therein. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, A). shall not enter India, or shall not, or shall enter India only at such times and by such routes. B), shall not depart from India or shall depart only at such time and by such route from such port. Shall not remain in India or in any prescribed areas wherein.

groups within that cast. You cannot say that today you are adharmi. The moment you come in the list My Lord, this would be a misnomer, because that is how the society stands it. The moment you come in, the list, you cease being an adharmi, you become a Scheduled Caste, can't be. There is nothing called as just a Scheduled Caste. It's only the inclusion in the schedule, which makes it in common parlance to be called a Scheduled Caste,