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

2017 Supreme(SC) 1821

DIPAK MISRA, A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY GHOGRE – Respondent


ORDER :

1. When the listed matters were called for hearing for the purpose of grant of leave, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General of India, placed before us an order passed by two-Judge Bench in Civil Appeal Nos. 4562-4564 of 2017 (The State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors.) and other connected matters, which states as under:-

    “The questions posed in these cases involve the interpretation of Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India in the backdrop of mainly three Constitution Bench decisions – (1)"Indra Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others, (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217, (2) E.V Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and others, (2005) 1 SCC 394 and (3) M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 212. One crucially relevant aspect brought to our notice is that Nagaraj (supra) and Chinnaiah (supra) deal with the disputed subject namely backwardness of the SC/ST but Chinnaiah (supra) which came earlier in time has not been referred to in Nagaraj(supra). The question of further and finer interpretation on the application of Article 16(4A) has also arisen in this case. Extensive arguments have been advanced from both sides. Th

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