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

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1142

RANJIT MORE, BHARATI H.DANGRE
Jishri Laxmnarao Patil, Member Indian Constitutionalist Council – Appellant
Versus
Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Gunratan Sadavarte, Arun D. Nagarjun, Anil D. Sabale, Siddhart J. Bhosale, Ankush Govindrao Gavale, Y.H. Muchhala, Musaddique Momin, Tauseef Sayyed, Ashish Gaikwad, Bhavana R. Khichi, Prabhakar Ranshur, Ranjeet Thorat, Firoz Barucha, Rajesh A. Tekale, S.B. Talekar, J.G. Ardwad (Reddy), Arvind Aswani, Ramesh Dube Patil, Ankur Pahade, Vivek Joshi, Khushbu Marwadi, Prasad Dube Patil, Ashish Mehta, Santosh Parad, Aparna D. Vhatkar, Prasad Dhakephalkar, Abhijit Patil, C.N. Chavan, D.P. Aloni, Rahul Agrawal, Rafique Dada, Mihir Desai, Pooja Thorat, Bhavana Khichi, Mukul Rohatgi, Paramjeet Singh Patwalia, Nishant Katneshwarkar, V.A. Thorat, A.Y. Sakhare, G.R. Shastri, P.P. Kakade, Vaibhav Sugdare, Prachi Tatake, Akshay Shinde, B. Panel, Rohan S. Mirpury, Deepak Salvi, Misha Rohatgi, Harshika Varma, Vineet Naik, Sukand Kulkarni, Sandeep Dere, Rajiv Chavan, Priyanka Chavan, Anupama Pawar, Sumangala Yadav, Rajesh Tekale, Sachin Pawar, Yogesh P. Morbale, Abhijit Tambe, Nasir Mohammed, Vijayalaxmi Khopade, A.A. Siddiqui, Parag Vyas, Nilesh Wable, D.W. Bhosale, A.R. Singh, S.R. Singh, Rameshwar N. Gite, Ankit Chaturvedi, Rohit Gorade, Avanti Inamdar, V.P. Patil, Vaibhav Kadam, Gajanan Shinde, Sambhaji Kharatmol, Abhijit Desai, Divya Parab, Sanjeev B. Dere, Suchita Pawar, Jitendra P. Patil, Dilip Shinde, Sandeep Salunke, Satish Mane Shinde, V.M. Thorat, Pooja Thorat, Vitthal Ghumde, Rajan Gaikwad, Sachin D. Kadam, S.D. Rupwate, Leena Patil, Akshay R. Kapadia, Sanjeev R. Singh, S. Agrawal, Arvind Datar, Pradeep Sancheti, Darshit Jain, Prathamesh Kamat, Kanchan Dube, Neha Yadav, Pallavi Bali, Ashish U. Mishra, S.G. Anney, Pooja Patil, Premlal Krishnan, Sankalp Anantwar, Anurag Mankar, Rishi Alwa, Dinesh Bhatia, Ejaj Naqvi, S.T. Manek, P.V. Thorat, Anukul Seth, Aditya Bhagat.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjit More, J.

1. Every democracy is challenged by the complex task of providing social justice to sections that have been traditionally discriminated against, while ensuing that such affirmative action does not hinder opportunities offered to the rest of the population. The caste system deeply embodied in Indian society is accused of widespread discrimination on basis of descent and birth. Successive Governments have sought to redress this inequity through policy of affirmative action, which is perceived as policies formulated with a view to increase opportunities for the disadvantaged class. The Constitution itself has endeavored to rectify discrimination against group of people often loosely referred to as "Other Backward Class" through Articles 15, 16, 335 and 340. The absence of precise definition of this term, resulted in development of a method to identify them and determine who exactly comprised the Other Backward Class. This vexatious issue persisted since the Constitution came into force and has perplexed the Indian Judicial System since long. At times, this

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