New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rebuked a third-year law student for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, a Presidential Order specifying castes recognized as Scheduled Castes. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition, strongly advising the student to concentrate on his studies instead.

During the hearing, Justice Kant questioned the student, who appeared in person, about his reasons for challenging a 75-year-old order, especially without completing his law degree. He remarked that the student seemed to be seeking media attention, stating, "You have become so crazy and fond of media to highlight yourself that before completing your law, you have starting filing writ petitions".

The court observed that the PIL lacked solid research or legal foundation and appeared to be an attempt to attract media attention. The bench expressed disappointment, advising the student not to misuse the legal process for publicity. Justice Kant warned, "Go and complete your law. Otherwise, we will impose some exemplary cost and pass some remarks against you!".

The bench dismissed the petition, stating, "The petitioner, who claims to be a law student, instead of concentrating on completing his studies, has apparently filed this writ petition to gain popularity. He [appears] to be media-crazy and has chosen to file the writ petition without doing any homework, with all cryptic and incomplete/misdirected information". The court emphasized that the student had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for challenging the 1950 order so many years later, especially with a PIL containing "cryptic and misdirected information".

The 1950 Presidential Order, amended in 1956 and 1990, grants reservation to Scheduled Castes among Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs but not to those who have converted to Christianity or Islam. The student could not justify how the 1950 order had caused him harm or why he was raising the issue after so long.

This incident serves as a reminder to law students and young advocates about the importance of thorough research and a solid legal foundation before filing PILs. The court's message was clear: legal actions should be based on genuine legal issues and not driven by a desire for publicity. Frivolous petitions waste judicial time and can damage professional credibility.