ARUN KUMAR, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, G. P. MATHUR, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, Y. K. SABHARWAL, R. C. LAHOTI, TARUN CHATTERJEE
P. A. Inamdars – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtras – Respondent
Judgment
R.C. Lahoti, CJI.—
Preliminary
Leave granted in all SLPs.
2. A Coram of 11 Judges, not a common feature in the Supreme Court of India, sat to hear and decide T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 (hereinafter ‘Pai Foundation’, for short). It was expected that the authoritative pronouncement by a Bench of such strength on the issues arising before it would draw a final curtain on those controversies. The subsequent events tell a different story. A learned academician observes that the 11-Judge Bench decision in Pai Foundation is a partial response to some of the challenges posed by the impact of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation (LPG); but the question whether that is a satisfactory response, is indeed debatable. It was further pointed out that ‘the decision raises more questions than it has answered’ (see: Annual Survey of Indian Law, 2002 at p.251, 254). The Survey goes on to observe “the principles laid down by the majority in Pai Foundation are so broadly formulated that they provide sufficient leeway to subsequent courts in applying those principles while the lack of clarity in the judgment allows judicial creativity...” (ibid at p.256)
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh
St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi
Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat
P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Pushpagiri Medical Society v. State of Kerala & Ors.
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.