A. P. SEN, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, O. CHHINNAPPA REDDY, D. A. DESAI, E. S. VENKATARAMIAH
K. C. Vasanth Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Question 1? How to identify which groups constitute "backward classes" under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and what criteria may be used?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) </ Key Points>
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :- My learned Brethren have expressed their respective points of view on the policy of reservations which, alas. is even figuratively, a burning issue today. We were invited by the counsel not so much as to deliver judgments but to express our opinion on the issue of reservations, which may serve as a guideline to the Commission which the Government of Karnataka proposes to appoint, for examining the question of affording better employment and educational opportunities to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. A somewhat unusual exercise is being undertaken by the Court in giving expression to its views without reference to specific facts. But, institutions profit by well-meaning innovations. The facts will appear before the Commission and it will evolve suitable tests in the matter of reservations. I cannot resist expressing the hope that the deep thinking and sincerity which has gone into the formulation of the opinions expressed by my learned Brethren will not go waste. The proposed Commission should give its close application to their weighty opinions. Mine is only a skeletal effort. I reserve the right to elaborate upon it, but
considered : State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore
T. Devadasan v. Union of India
Triloki NathTiku v. State of J. and K
Triloki Nath v. State of J. and K
A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T. M
Janki Prasad Parimoo v. State of J. and K
State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon
State of Kerala v . N. M. Thomas
K. S. Jayasree V. State of Kerala
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India
considered : State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas
Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras
C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India
criticised : M.R.Bataji v. State of Mysore
considered : Minar P. Rajendran v. State of Madras
D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India
State of J. and K. v. Triloki Nath Khosa
relied on : K. S. Jayasree v. State of Kerala
referred to : D.M.Chanchala v. State of Mysore
State of Kerala v. T. P. Roshana
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.