Back
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S. C. AGRAWAL, L. M. SHARMA, J. S. VERMA, M. N. VENKATACHALIAH
R. C. Poudyal: Somnath Poudyal: Nandu Thapa: Roop Raj Rai – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
SHARMA, C.J.I.:—The two constitutional questions of vital importance which arise in this case are: (i) whether a seat can be earmarked at all in the Legislature of a State after its complete merger in India for a representative of a group of religious institutions to be elected by them, and (ii) whether seats can be reserved in favour of a particular tribe far in excess of its population. My answer to both the questions is in the negative.
2. These cases relate to the Constitution of Legislative Assembly of Sikkim which merged with India in 1975. They were instituted as writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Sikkim High Court and have been later transferred to this Court. The main case being Writ Petition No. 4 of 1980 registered as Transfer Case No. 78 of 1982 after transfer to this Court was filed by the petitioner R. C. Poudyal in person and he was conducting this case himself, and will be referred to as the petitioner or the writ petitioner in this judgment. During the course of the hearing of the case, Mr. R. K. Jain assisted the Court as amicus curiae and pressed the writ petition on his behalf. Transfer Case No. 84 of 1982 was filed by Somnath P
State Of Sikkim VS Surendra Prasad Sharma - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 459: Cited as a "Constitution Bench decision" with "we may usefully refer to", indicating approval and reliance.
Mal Chandra Pegu : Karuana Dutta VS Karuna Dutta : Mal Chandra Peguand Ors. - 1997 0 Supreme(Gau) 37: "has categorically held", showing strong positive treatment and binding authority.
LAKHAN SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2000 0 Supreme(All) 1009: Quoted with approval from Hon'ble Pandian, J., referencing observations in the case.
R. K. SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - 2000 0 Supreme(Del) 833: Cited alongside other cases to support a legal proposition on judicial review and mandamus.
Lakhbir Singh Sehmee VS State of Punjab - 2002 0 Supreme(P&H) 479: Cited with specific reference to para 71, indicating reliance on its observations.
Special Reference No. 1 Of 2002 VS Union Of India - 2002 7 Supreme 437: Cited as authority on ensuring free and fair elections under Article 174.
Special Reference No. 1 Of 2002 VS Union of India - 2002 7 Supreme 437: Cited "on the point" by Khare, J., showing relevance and use.
KANTILAL JAIN VS G. T. BHUTIA - 2004 0 Supreme(Sikk) 19: Cited to argue against immunity, but in context of substantive discussion (not negative).
Ashok Tanwar VS State Of H. P. - 2005 2 Supreme 103: Quoted from para 124 with approval ("observed thus").
SHARADAMMA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2005 0 Supreme(Kar) 273: Cited as precedent alongside other cases (e.g., "Karunanidhi v Union of India").
Munna Lal Gupta Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Shri Lakhan Lal Gupta VS State of U. P. through Chief Secretary, U. P. Urban Development Anubhag - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 908: Cited via "Vide" (see), indicating reference as authority.
Mangal Dev son of Ram Roop and Shashi Dewivedi wife of Mangal Dev VS State Election Commission through its Election Commissioner, The District - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 1017: Cited in list of precedents without negative qualifier.
Kesari Devi VS State of U. P. , Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Collector/distt. Magistrate and Chief Development officer/Mukhya Adhikari - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 2614: Cited as precedent with parallel references.
SWAMI PRASAD MAURYA VS SPEAKER, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UTTAR PRADESH - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 647: Cited with page reference ("1993(1) SCR at page 891"), showing reliance.
Ewanlangki-e-Rymbai VS Jaintia Hills District Councils - 2006 4 Supreme 426: Cited as case where Court "considered the challenged" provisions.
SUBHASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 1078: Cited as "In Union of India and others v.", indicating use.
ASHOK KUMAR MALPANI VS STATE OF M. P. - 2009 0 Supreme(MP) 1029: Cited multiple times, showing repeated reliance.
Union of India VS Rakes Kumar - 2010 1 Supreme 334: Cited as precedent on findings challenged before Court.
B. P. Singhal VS Union of India - 2010 4 Supreme 619: Cited in context of Article 371-F argument.
J & K National Panthers Party VS The Union of India - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1066: Cited as case examining Article 170(2) on reservation.
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir VS District Collector, Raigad - 2012 2 Supreme 506: "A similar view has been reiterated", strongly positive.
Ram Naresh Yadav VS State of M. P. - 2015 0 Supreme(MP) 228: Cited but noted as "inapposite" by counsel for Union of India; however, Court distinguishes rather than criticizes, and cites another Union of India case positively.
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2015 8 Supreme 65: Repeated citation of "Union of India", indicating reliance.
Ambedkarite Party of India, through its Authorised General Secretary Mrs. Vidya Kishor Bhimte VS State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 1837: "has clearly held", strong positive treatment.
JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD. ) VS UNION OF INDIA - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772: Cited in writ petition context.
Government of NCT of Delhi VS Union of India - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 699: Cited as "Earlier, in Union of India v.", with reference to specific judge's view.
Vijay Namdeorao Wadettiwar VS State of Maharashtra Through Chief Secretary - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1680: Cited alongside Minerva Mills, with reference to "later judgment" implying sequence but no negativity.
Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil VS Chief Minister - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 248: Cited as "In Union of India v.", indicating use.
Association for Democratic Reforms VS Union of India - 2024 2 Supreme 342: Cited with specific paragraph reference (para 62).
Balram Singh VS Union of India - 2024 8 Supreme 713: Cited to "elucidate" term 'secular', showing explanatory reliance.
Ram Naresh Yadav VS State of M. P. - 2015 0 Supreme(MP) 228: Explicitly "relied by the learned counsel for the Union of India, in our opinion, is also inapposite" – distinguished as not applicable.
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE ON RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 922: Minimal content ("Union of India and Ors." repeated); no clear treatment indicators or context for positive/negative use.
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, ROORKEE VS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL - 2001 0 Supreme(UK) 186: Cited to "canvassed a proposition" and attention invited to it; ambiguous whether approved or contrasted (no explicit follow/distinguish).
Balram Singh VS Union of India - 2024 8 Supreme 713: Mentions multiple Union of India cases together; treatment blends elucidation with historical context, but no clear single pattern.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
