SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 506

ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN, M.R.SHAH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Davinder Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ranjit Kumar, Uttara Babbar, Bhavana Duhoon, Manan Bansal, Anshuman Singh, (Also for Respondent/State of Punjab in T.C.(C) NO.38/2011), Rakesh Kumar Khanna, O. P. Bhadani, Aditya P. Khanna, Ramya Khanna, (Also for respondent No.1 & 2 in C.A.5587/2020), Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Vidisha Swarup, Rohit Kumar Singh, M.S. Ganesh, K. Seshachari, Anant Kumar Vatsya, Vinay Kumar Misra, Devendra Singh, Arun Bhardwaj, Haryana Dr. Monika Gusain, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Gauraan Bhardwaj, Abhishek Sharma, (for State of Haryana), Anandh Kannan N., Kamal Mohan Gupta, Satyendra Kumar, S.C. Paul, Roopa Paul, R.K. Singh, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, P.S. Baghath Singh, V. Subramanian Maduri, B. N. Dubey, Mahendra Kumawat, Robin Khokhar, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Kapoor, Gurbhajan Singh, Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Anis Ahmed Khan, Rohit Sharma, Rounak Nayak, Atul Agrawal, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Anmol Chandan, Saurabh Mishra, Shruti Agarwal, Prashant Rawat, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Shekhar Naphade, Jayant Muthraj, Balaji Srinivasan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Raja Rajeshwaran S. , Nidhesh Gupta, Japneet Kaur, S. Janani, Colin Gonsalves, Siddharth Seem, P. Venkatesan, Jyoti Mendiratta, R. Venkatramani, G. Balaji, Bankey Bihari Sharma, Parmanand Pandey, Utkarsh Pandey, Kuldip Singh, R. V. Kameshwaran, Vipin Kumar Jai, Sanjay Hegde, Tushar Bakshi, Pranjal Kishore, Shovit Singh, Shiva Pujan Singh, Shekhar Kumar, Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Advocate Ravi Prakash, Ajit Kumar, Advocate Sandeep Malik, Advocate Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Beno Bencigar, P. Soma Sundaram, Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Ajit Kumar Ekka, R.S.M. Kalky, Sunil Kumar, Abhishek Chauhan, Rahul Gupta, Naresh Bakshi, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Satyendra Kumar, S.C. Paul, Roopa Paul, Aabhas Kshetarpal, Siddhartha Jha, Rakesh Dahiya, S. Gowthaman, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Suraj Kaushik, Dharam Singh, Nanda Kumar, Agam Sharma, For M/s. Nuli & Nuli K. Paari Vendhan, A. Subba Rao, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Deepak Anand, Sanjay Jain, Brij Bhushan, Uttara Babbar, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Satyendra Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Rohit Kumar Singh, Robin Khokhar, Kuldip Singh, O.P. Bhadani, Devendra Singh, Anandh Kannan N., M. Yogesh Kanna, Anis Ahmed Khan, Parmanand Pandey, Bankey Bihari Sharma, S. Janani, Ravi Prakash, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, P. Soma Sundaram, Ajit Kumar Ekka, Rahul Gupta, Naresh Bakshi, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Uttara Babbar, G. Balaji, Kuldip Singh, R.V. Kameshwaran, Vipin Kumar Jai, Brij Bhushan, Tushar Bakshi, O.P. Bhadani, Shiva Pujan Singh, Shekhar Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Siddhartha Jha, Satyendra Kumar, Rakesh Dahiya, K. Paari Vendhan, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Deepak Anand, Sanjay Jain, Raj Bahadur Yadav, S. Gowthaman, Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

Arun Mishra, J.

A Bench of three Judges vide order dated 20.8.2014 referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration opining that the judgment of a 5-Judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A.P. and Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 394, is required to be revisited in the light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, and not correctly following the exposition of the law in Indra Sawhney and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217. It was noted that matter involved interpretation and interplay between Articles 16(1), 16(4), 338 and 341 of the Constitution of India.

2. We, in order to consider the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Punjab Act') in the matter referred, framed the following issues on 4.2.2020:

    "(i) Whether the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 are constitutionally valid?

    (ii) Whether the State had the legislative competence to enact the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of the Act?

    (iii) Whether the decision in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A. P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top