Case Law Details
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions to implement a creamy layer system for tax exemption available to Scheduled Tribes under Section 11 read with Serial No. 19 of Schedule III of the Income-Tax Act, 2025, so that the benefit would be limited to poor Scheduled Tribe individuals. Alternatively, the petitioner sought a declaration that the blanket tax exemption under the said provision was manifestly arbitrary, irrational, violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 and 27 of the Constitution, and therefore void and inoperative. After hearing the petitioner-in-person at length, the Court observed that the reliefs sought essentially involved the formulation, revision, or amendment of legislative public policy, making the Court an inappropriate forum for granting such relief at this stage. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Committee on Petitions constituted under Rule 306 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha through a comprehensive petition and also permitted the petitioner to send a copy of the writ petition as a representation to the respondents and other concerned authorities. The writ petition and all pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The instant writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following reliefs:
a) direct the Centre to implement creamy layer system in tax exemption for schedule tribes under Section-11 read with Schedule-III, Sr. No-19 of the Income Tax Act 2025, in order to ensure that advantage is given to only poor scheduled tribe individuals, not the rich and elite class;
b) alternatively, direct and declare that blanket tax exemption under Section-11, Serial No. 19 of Schedule-III of the Income-Tax Act, 2025 is manifestly arbitrary, irrational and violates Articles 14, 15, 19(i)(g), 21, 27 of the Constitution. Hence, void & inoperative;
c) pass such other order(s) as Court deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice
2. We have heard Shri Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, petitioner-in-person, at a considerable length.
3. It seems to us that the reliefs sought in the instant petition essentially involve formulation, revision, and/or amendment of the legislative public policy. This Court may not, therefore, be an appropriate platform for the aforesaid purpose at this stage.
4. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Committee on Petitions, constituted under Rule 306 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, by way of a comprehensive petition.
5. Similarly, the petitioner shall be at liberty to send a copy of this writ petition, as a representation, to the respondents as well as other concerned Authorities.
6. With liberty aforementioned, the instant petition is disposed of.
7. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
