Trace Your Case

Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Indra Sawhney v. UOI AIR 1993 SC 477

ISSUE:

Whether Article 16(4) is an exception of Article 16(1) or not?

Whether the classification made is on the basis of economy or caste?

Whether in Article 16(4) Backward classes are similar to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in Article 15(4) or not?

RULE:

Article 16(1), Article 16(4), Article 15(4), Article 340(1) of the Indian Constitution.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India The Basic Structure Doctrine

M. Nagaraj v. UOI (2006) 8 SCC 212

ISSUE:

Validity of the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000, the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000, and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.

RULE:

Article 16(4)(A) and (B) of the constitution.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI (2008) 6 SCC 1

ISSUE:

Whether the 93rd Amendment of the constitution is against the “basic structure” of the Constitution?

Whether the exclusion of minority educational institutions from Article 15(5) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?

If so, whether “Creamy Layer” is to be excluded from SEBCs?

RULE:

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

93rd Constitution Amendment Act, 2005.

The Central Educational Institutions Act 2006.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, AIR 2008 SC 663

ISSUE:

Whether sections 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 constitutionally valid?

Whether a restriction on employment of a particular group of people, not a hindrance to their fundamental right to equality under Article 16?

RULE:

When laws, procedures, or acts directly violate the constitution, they are unconstitutional.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829

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.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Ram Singh v. Union of India MANU/SC/0283/2015

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.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396

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.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Indian Young Lawyer’s Association v. The State of Kerala, MANU/SC/1094/2018

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.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Anti-discrimination and affirmative action (Reservations) in India

Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 1 SCC 463

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.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now