Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court dismissed a 27-year-old case filed by a senior auditor, working in the Defence Services audit office at Ambazari here, seeking recognition as belonging to “Bahna,” a Scheduled Caste (SC), despite professing Islam.The writ petition was filed in 1999. A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta last week upheld the Nov 24, 1998, order of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, which had invalidated the petitioner’s caste claim.The court also rejected his challenge to Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which restricts Scheduled Caste status to persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism.The Paragraph 3 provision says that “no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.” The petitioner argued that exclusion of Muslims was unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 25.The judges said the issue had already been decided by Supreme Court in Soosai versus Union of India, which upheld the validity of Paragraph 3. “The law continues to bind this court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. We are of the considered opinion that the constitutional challenge raised by the petitioner cannot be entertained,” they added.Similar questions involving Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians are pending before the top court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation versus Union of India, the judges said adding that the pendency could not unsettle binding precedent.The petitioner, a Katol road resident, had earlier sought transfer of his petition to Supreme Court, but the top court declined on May 20, 2026, saying there was “no legal necessity” for transfer and asked the high court to decide the matter expeditiously.While dismissing the plea, the judges said the SC order did not reopen the settled legal position. They, however, clarified that if the apex court later takes a different view on the validity of Paragraph 3, the petitioner may seek appropriate relief and consequential benefits, if otherwise entitled.“Until Soosai case is reconsidered or overruled by a bench of competent strength, this court is duty-bound to apply the law as it presently stands. Consequently, the prayer seeking a declaration that Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 25 of the Constitution cannot be granted,” the bench said.
