Author: TYC

ISSUE:

Whether clauses 46 and 47 of Air India Employees Service Regulations are violative of Art. 14,15 and 16 of the Indian constitution and thus ultra vires in whole or part?

RULE:

Article 14, Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Article 15(1), The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

Article 16, Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

ISSUE:

Whether the notification dated 04.03.2013, by which Jat community has been included in the Central List of Backward Class for some states is justified or not?

RULE:

The perception of a self-proclaimed socially backward class of citizens or even the perception of the “advanced classes” as to the social status of the “less fortunate” cannot continue to be a constitutionally permissible yardstick for determination of backwardness, both in the context of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.

Neither can any longer backwardness be a matter of determination on the basis of mathematical formulae evolved by taking into account social, economic and educational indicators.

ISSUE:

Whether M. Nagaraj v. Association of India required re-examination?

If the Nagaraj case needed re-examination, can the aspect of collecting quantifiable data to prove backwardness be considered valid?

Whether the creamy layer among the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe be excluded from the scope of reservations?

RULE:

Article 16 is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens of India. It deals with equality in terms of public employment. It assured equal opportunity to all employees. Article 16(4) of the Indian constitution is a sub clause which deals with reservation. The State is allowed to lay down criteria for providing reservations to those belonging to backward communities if they are not adequately represented.

ISSUE:

Whether the exclusionary practice which is based upon a biological factor exclusive to the female gender amounts to “discrimination” and thereby violets the very core of Article 14, Article 15 and Article 17 and protected by “morality” as used in Article 25 and Article 26[6] of the constitution?

RULE:

The equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 does not override the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 25 to every individual to freely profess, practise and propagate their faith, in accordance with the tenets of their religion.

Constitutional Morality in a secular polity would imply the harmonisation of the Fundamental Rights, which include the right of every individual, religious denomination, or sect, to practise their faith and belief in accordance with the tenets of their religion, irrespective of whether the practise is rational or logical.

ISSUE:

Whether the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 8 of 2015) is constitutionally valid or not?

RULE:

Those who aspire to get elected to those civic bodies and administer them must set an example for others. To the said end if the legislature stipulates that those who are not following basic norms of hygiene are ineligible to become administrators of the civic body and disqualifies them as a class from seeking election to the civic body, such a policy, in our view, can neither be said to create a class based on unintelligible criteria nor can such classification be said to be unconnected with the object sought to be achieved by the Act.