How to change Sc to obc

Originally posted by : arti gupta
	for this can I put petiton in court.... please suggest me

Yes you may approach court, provided any legislation having "force of law" prohibits the child/ parents of the child from making a choice. Caste of child having parents of different castes, by custom is determined by society on basis of the caste of the father. It is not based on some scientific fact or evidence. How? Because the child inherits equally 50% DNA from mother and 50% DNA from father. It will be injustice with the rights of the child to not allow him or parents of the child to make the choice of caste when DNA of both castes are equally present. Core purpose of the Constituion is to protect Liberty. And the core purpose of Liberty is the choice making ability.

So before proceeding first find out which enactment prohibits the child or parents of the child from making a choice about caste, when the parents are from two different castes. Once you know this then may contact any experienced lawyer and approach High Court as per his guidance.

Seems to be a hypothetical acaemic query.

You are GUPTA by caste. As you stated, you are OBC, since when Guptas have been declared as of OBC category?

However, heredetary can't change. If you think only casrte is the criteria for social standing, you may let your children be got adopted to some parent with your desired caste. Why trying to trouble the heavily burdened courts of law by filing a petition?

Democratic Indian says

“Caste of child having parents of different castes, by custom is determined by society on basis of the caste of the father”.

The statement is absolutely wrong. No caste climbing through marriage is possible in Hinduism. There are two types of inter-caste marriages according to scripttures. In one case the husband will belong to the upper caste and wife the lower. Such marriages are called anuloma marriages. Child born in an anuloma marriage will belong to the lower viz. the caste of the mother, not that of the father. In the other type the husband will belong to a lower caste and wife to an upper caste. Such marriages are called pratiloma marriages. Child born in a pratiloma marriage will belong to a caste lower than the caste of the father. An example from scripttures is the marriage of King Yayati, a Kshatriya, to Devayani, daughter of Shukracharya, a Brahmin woman. Their son was Yadu. He was considered to be of a lower caste than that of a Kshatriya. Descendants of Yadu are called Yadavas. Yadavas are considered as OBC’s today.

Now coming to the query of Ms. Arti Gupta there are High Court and Supreme Court decisions on the question. If the child of an inter-caste marriage continues to suffer the disabilities and deprivations of the lower caste, he or she can claim the reservations and other benefits available to the lower caste. The burden of proving this is on the parents. 

If your purpose is only to abandon reservations there is no need to go to court. A court may not accept your petition as such a petition would have no relevance to anything. Even if the court gives an order in your favour, of what use is that?  If you want to avail reservations for OBC instead of what is available for ST/SC, how would it help you? 

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	The statement is absolutely wrong. No caste climbing through marriage is possible in Hinduism.

The Indian Constitution is a secular Constitution. Fundamental Duties and Fundamental Rights are two sides of the same coin. If there is a fundamental duty for citizen, it definitely has corresponding fundamental right of citizen to do that duty in Part III. Article 51A(h) on Fundamental duties clearly says "to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;" it means right to enforce these exist in Part III. It also means the Constitution is not bothered about caste climbing. Rather it is bothered about developing the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform(includes caste climbing or getting rid of caste for purpose of reform etc.).

It is very unfortunate but well known fact(even acknowledged by legislations like SC/ ST Act) that persons belonging to SC/ST are looked upon by many sections of society in very atrocious, unrespectful, undignified, undersirable, discriminatory manner. If some child of SC and OBC parents wants to do caste climbing(from SC to OBC), scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform as desired by Constitution do support this. Morever it is not caste climbing as you would like to call, if you use your scientific temper, the child has 50% DNA of each parent of different caste, child has natural human right to make a choice which caste to take on for social or public purposes. How can a secular State prevent this natural human right? Did the Supreme Court not intervene in the triple talaq case?

Courts are not infallible, they can do mistakes and they do correct themselves from time to time. Moreover, any legal precedent can only apply to same or similar set of facts. It cannot apply to different set of facts.

Originally posted by : Democratic Indian
	Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech] The statement is absolutely wrong. No caste climbing through marriage is possible in Hinduism. The Indian Constitution is a secular Constitution. Fundamental Duties and Fundamental Rights are two sides of the same coin. If there is a fundamental duty for citizen, it definitely has corresponding fundamental right of citizen to do that duty in Part III. Article 51A(h) on Fundamental duties clearly says "to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;" it means right to enforce these exist in Part III. It also means the Constitution is not bothered about caste climbing. Rather it is bothered about developing the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform(includes caste climbing or getting rid of caste for purpose of reform etc.). It is very unfortunate but well known fact(even acknowledged by legislations like SC/ ST Act) that persons belonging to SC/ST are looked upon by many sections of society in very atrocious, unrespectful, undignified, undersirable, discriminatory manner. If some child of SC and OBC parents wants to do caste climbing(from SC to OBC), scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform as desired by Constitution do support this. Morever it is not caste climbing as you would like to call, if you use your scientific temper, the child has 50% DNA of each parent of different caste, child has natural human right to make a choice which caste to take on for social or public purposes. How can a secular State prevent this natural human right? Did the Supreme Court not intervene in the triple talaq case? Courts are not infallible, they can do mistakes and they do correct themselves from time to time. Moreover, any legal precedent can only apply to same or similar set of facts. It cannot apply to different set of facts.

@ Democratic Indian,

Frankly speaking to some extent by MDr. Ramani and to the most extent by you, the topic hase quite been sidetracked from its real issue pertaining to the query of the querist.

Further, some vagueness is clearly demonstrated in your observation, just like some leaders prefer to start igniting some controversy in some particular issue without any reason or rhyme

However, with reference to your observation, I would also like to present my viewpoints.

Constitution of India is a sleeping giant, particularly the biggest majority of common man of the democratic aIndia is unaware about its contents. Whereas everything takes shelter (positively or even negatively) on the body of the said Constitution. But in the context of the Consitution of India, if anything is brought to prominence by any source, i.e., legislation, media or otherwise, in anyway they can present, repurcussions, as are sure to arise start tasking place and got broadened by any affected parties.

So, why expect them to be gagged, particularly when you believe that the constitution contains fundamental rights also besides the duties? Even the Constitution, while speaks about rights, in itself makes provisions for curbing of some rights also in one or the other way. Further, when you believe, "Fundamental duties clearly say "to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;" the question arises, who is responsible for developing such temper or spirit amongst the public in general, whether the rules or the public in themselves?

Every activity pertaining to the democracy in present day is pivoted around solely on the politicians after exercise of one day's democratic right of franchise by the people of India. Rest the politicians have to take care for the entire period of 5 years. EVEN YOU DON'T ENJOY THE RIGHT TO RECTIFY YOUR MISTAKE OF WRONG CHOICE BY IN ORDER TO RECALL HIM BACK IF YOU HAVE ELECTED SOME WRONG PERSON. So, only the the political leaders/parties  can be blaimed for failure for non development of the desired temper and spirit among the people. Every day, one political leader says something controvesrial and the medis starts giving air to that as of the bigesst news of the world in the name of "SABSE BADI KHABAR," and the people of different ideologies start wasting of their time in discussion or forming their own assumptions, both, positive as well as negative. This is the biggest drawback of the present day democracy that there is no adequate control system.

In nutshell, anything directed by the Constitution goes haywire when no adequarte control system is developed. Laws provide only punishment, not the realistic remedies to develop mechanism (punisment is certainly not mechanism) to develop tempers and spirits.

I see no relevance of what all that have been written on behalf of the Constitution to what I wrote. I agree with all that have been written about the Constitution.

Dr. MPS Ramani,

What do you want to convey in your statement by the term, "writtenon behalf of the Constitution" and "written about the Constitution"?

Correct it as written on behalf of the Constitution.

Very very vague clarification by Dr. MPS. Ramani!

The question of the author of this thread has been very presicely and clearly answered by me, as well my view about Dr. Ramani's implicit assertion about supremacy of scripttures over a person's basic natural human rights and natural liberty of choice. If someone is not able to understand or disagrees, it is better to presicely clarify the point or points that is not clear or one disagrees with. It will make the discussion more productive and not become an useless slanging match.

Originally posted by : Democratic Indian
	The question of the author of this thread has been very presicely and clearly answered by me, as well my view about Dr. Ramani's implicit assertion about supremacy of scriptttttttures over a person's basic natural human rights and natural liberty of choice. If someone is not able to understand or disagrees, it is better to presicely clarify the point or points that is not clear or one disagrees with. It will make the discussion more productive and not become an useless slanging match.

WOW, A CASE OF SELF PRAISE, BUT LACK OF COMMONSENSE, AND THE VERY BASIC LEGAL UNDERSTANDING, WHAT TO SAY OF LEGAL  ACUMEN !

When you have not been able to understand that the querist has come here just to find solution to her problem, but you had started to teach her lessons on contitutional provisions on vague issues, it cannot be a case of someone else's understanding, BUT A CASE OF YOUR OWN CORRUPT UNDERSTANDING, 

JUST THINK, WHEN YOU SAY, "Yes you may approach court, PROVIDED any legislation having "force of law" prohibits the child/ parents of the child from making a choice." and  ALSO SAY FURTHER, "So BEFORE PROCEEDING first FIND OUT which enactment prohibits the child or parents of the child from making a choice about caste," WHERE IS THE SOLUTION FOR THE QUERIST, WHICH YOU UNDERSTAND WITH YOUR CORRUPT UNDERSTANDING BY SAYING, "The question of the author of this thread has been very presicely and clearly answered by me?" THAT JUST GIVES VERY CLEAR INDICATION ABOUT YOUR HAVING NO BASIC UNDERSTANDING ABOUT LEGAL IMPLICATIONS ABOUT THE DESIRE OF THE QUERIST.

SO, MAY YOUR VIEW BE OF SOME RELEVANCE TO "Dr. Ramani's implicit assertion about supremacy of scriptttures over a person's basic natural human rights and natural liberty of choice," BUT CANNOT BE THE ANSWER WITH ANY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF THE AUTHOR OF THE QUESTION. 

STILL FURTHER, the law of the land is not driven by the INDIVIDUAL DESIRES and NATUTAL LIBERTY OF CHOICE, when you speak about the Constitutional provisions. THAT ISTSELF SPEAKS ABOUT YOUR IGNORANCE OF NOT ONLY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BUT ALSO THE LAW MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. In fact, what you suggested was your sheer vague and irrational corrupt thinking about the Constituion as well as inability to make sense of the individual choices with the laws of the land.

Mr. Democraric Indian, DEMOCRACY DOES NOT MEAN THAT INDIVIDUAL CHOICES CAN OR SHOULD RULE THE ROOSTE. It has to run keeping pace with the majority of the choices of the Indians.

You are required first to have the sense to understand the basics of the Constitution of India, then the laws made thereunder, then question of the querist, and then ask yourself, whether you have acquired some basic knowledge to provide some legal or even ethical administrative solution to the other fellow, and ONLY THEN try to answer his question. MERE SERMONS OF VAGUE & IRRATIONAL CORRUPTED VIEWS CANNOT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF A COMMON MAN.

A PERTINENT QUESTION ARISES, had the querist been able to "FIND OUT, which enactment prohibits the child or parents of the child from making a choice about caste," as you advised, WHERE WAS THE NEED FOR THE QUERIST TO COME HERE TO FIND ANSWERS FROM SOME PERSONS HAVING KNOWLEDGE TO SOLVE HIS PROBLEM?

Originally posted by : Democratic Indian
	The question of the author of this thread has been very presicely and clearly answered by me, as well my view about Dr. Ramani's implicit assertion about supremacy of scriptttures over a person's basic natural human rights and natural liberty of choice. If someone is not able to understand or disagrees, it is better to presicely clarify the point or points that is not clear or one disagrees with. It will make the discussion more productive and not become an useless slanging match.

@ Dr. MPS Ramani,

Can you please throw some light over the rationality of observation of the so called Mr." Democaratic Indian" where he has stated to have given his "view about Dr. Ramani's implicit assertion about supremacy of scriptttures over a person's basic natural human rights and natural liberty of choice?"

So far as his answer to the query of the querist, I am of the view that Mr. Jigyasu has made very befitting analysis of his views/ answer.