Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC75; JT1995(6)SC390; 1995LabIC2475; 1995(5)SCALE115; (1995)5SCC403; [1995]Supp3SCR269; 1996(1)SLJ155(SC); 1995(2)LC727(SC); (1995)3UPLBEC1563
Kuldip Singh, J.1. Constitutional validity of the criteria, for determining the 'creamy layer' for the purpose of exclusion from backward classes, laid-down by the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, has been challenged in these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.2. A Nine-Judge Bench of this Court in 'Mandal case' - Indra Sawhney v. Union of India : JT1992(6)SC673 - authoritatively interpreted various aspects of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. While holding that Article 16(4) aims at group backwardness this Court came to the conclusion that socially advanced members of a backward class-creamy layer' - have to be excluded from the said `class'. It was held that the `class' which remains after excluding the `creamy layer' would more appropriately serve the purpose and object of Article 16(4) .3. The protective discrimination in the shape of job reservations under Article 16(4) has to be programmed in such a manner that the most deserving section of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC802; 1984LabIC560; 1983(2)SCALE1151; (1984)3SCC161; [1984]2SCR67; 1984(16)LC29(SC)
Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioner is an organisation dedicated to the cause of release of bonded labourers in the country. The system of bonded labour has been prevalent in various parts of the country since long prior to the attainment of political freedom and it constitutes an ugly and shameful feature of our national life. This system based on exploitation by a few socially and economically powerful persons trading on the misery and suffering of large numbers of men and holding them in bondage is a relic of a feudal hierarchical society which hypocritically proclaims the divinity of men but treats large masses of people belonging to the lower rungs of the social ladder or economically impoverished segments of society as dirt and chattel. This system under which one person can be bonded to provide labour to another for years and years until an alleged debt is supposed to be wiped out which never seems to happen during the life time of the bonded labourer, is totally incompatible with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC578; (1961)ILLJ339SC; (1964)ILLJ9SC; [1959]1SCR12
Bhagwati, J.1. These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise the question as to the vires of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the decision of the Wage Board constituted thereunder. As they raise common questions of law and fact they can be dealt with under one common judgment. 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it will be helpful to trace the history of the events which led to the enactment of the impugned Act. 3. The newspaper industry in India did not originally start as an industry, but started as individual newspapers founded by leaders in the national, political, social and economic fields. During the last half a century, however, it developed characteristics of a profit making industry in which big industrialists invested money and combines controlling several newspapers all over the country also became the special feature of this deve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2178; JT1993(1)SC474; 1992(2)SCALE703; (1993)1SCC645; [1993]1SCR594
ORDER1. We have had the benefit of going through the two judgments of our learned Brothers B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S. Mohan, JJ. We are in agreement with the judgment of Brother B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. except to the extent indicated below.2. The question which arose in the case of Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka: : [1992]3SCR658 , as also in the present cases before us, is whether a citizen has a Fundamental Right to education for a medical, engineering or other professional degree. The question whether the right to primary education, as mentioned in Article 45 of the Constitution of India, is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 did not arise in Mohini Jain's case and no finding or observation on that question was called for. It was contended before us that since a positive finding on that question was recorded in Mohini Join's case it becomes necessary to consider its correctness on merits. We do not think so.3. Learned arguments were addressed in support of and against the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2867 OF2012Dr. Balram Prasad Appellant Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.692 of 2012 Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd. Appellant Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2866 of 2012 Dr. Kunal Saha Appellant Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.731 of 2012 Dr. Baidyanath Haldar Appellant Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL No.858 of 2012 Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee Appellant Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.The Civil Appeal Nos.2867, 731 and 858 of 2012 are filed by the appellant-doctors, Civil Appeal No.692 of 2012 is filed by the appellant-AMRI Hospital and Civil Appeal No.2866 of 2012 is filed by the claimant-appellant Dr. Kunal Saha (hereinafter referred to as the claimant), questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment and order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5989 of 2008 National Aluminium Co. Ltd. & Ors. .Appellant(s) Vs. Ananta Kishore Rout & Ors. .Respondent(s) With Civil Appeal No.5992 of 2008 Civil Appeal No.5993 of 2008 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.1. The Appellant herein, National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO) has established two schools for the benefit of the wards of its- employees. These schools are known as Saraswati Vidaya Mandir (SVM) and located at NALCO Nagar in Angul district and at Damandjodi in Koraput district, Orissa. Management of these schools is presently in the hand of Saraswati Vidya Mandir (SVS) which is affiliated to Vidya Bharati Akhila Bharatiya Sikhya Sansthan.2. Two Writ Petitions were filed by the employees of each of school in the Orissa High Court, Cuttack for a declaration that they are the employees of NALCO and be treated as such, with consequential prayer that these employees be also accorded suitable pay scales...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Wanasundera. PC. J. The Respondent - Appellant - Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant ) in this case has come before the Supreme Court being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of the Western Province established under Article 154P of the Constitution which had dismissed an appeal filed by him against the order of the Magistrate' Court of Mount Lavinia awarding maintenance for his wife, the Applicant - Respondent -Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) and the children.. The Appellant had also filed the Revision Application No. 168/2008 before the High Court against the same final order of the Magistrate's Court. Both the final appeal and the Revision Application were consolidated and taken up for hearing by the High Court together. Both cases were dismissed by the Learned High Court Judge by his judgment and order dated 14.07.2010. The Appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court itself, as provided for in Section 14(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LADY HALE, DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1. This is the judgment of the court, composed of Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Collins. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry presided over the panel which heard this case on 17 and 18 January 2011 and took part in our deliberations and decision upon the appeal: [2011] UKSC 14. His sudden illness and untimely death have sadly prevented him from taking any part in our deliberations and decision upon the cross-appeal. 2. The case relates to the unusual employment status of teachers employed by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to work in the European Schools. The main issue in the appeal was whether the terms of that employment fell foul of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2034) which implemented Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. This Court handed down judgment on 30 Marc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD DYSON (with whom Lord Walker agrees) In about December 2005, the claimant commenced employment as a sessional music assistant at X school ("the school"). On 4 October 2007, the parents of M, a 15 year old boy, who was undergoing a short period of work experience at the School, went to see the head teacher. They complained that the claimant, who was 22 years of age at the time, had kissed M. They also showed the head teacher two text messages which they said the claimant had sent to M and an entry in M's diary which appeared to indicate that some form of sexual relationship had developed between the two of them. On the same day, the head teacher summoned the claimant and informed him that he was being suspended because of an incident involving a young man. The school's child protection co-ordinator later provided a statement to the school in which she said that, after he had been suspended, the claimant admitted to her that he had kissed M and that he had sent a text inviting him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CRIMINALAPPEALNOS.12171219OF2017 [ArisingoutofS.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.26402642of2016]. Ms.Eera ThroughDr.ManjulaKrippendorf...Appellant(s) Versus State(Govt.ofNCTofDelhi)&Anr.Respondent(s) JUDGMENT DipakMisra,J.Leavegranted. 2. Thepivotalissuethatemanatesforconsiderationin theseappeals,byspecialleave,pertainstointerpretation ofSection2(d)oftheProtectionofChildrenfromSexual OffencesAct,2012(forshort,thePOCSOAct),andthe primary argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the definition in Section 2(d) that defineschildtomeananypersonbelowtheageof18 2 years, should engulf and embrace, in its connotative expanse, the mental age of a person or the age determined by the prevalent science pertaining to psychiatry so that a mentally retarded person or an extremelyintellectuallychallengedpersonwhoevenhas crossedthebiologicalageof18yearscanbeincluded withintheholisticconceptionoft...
Tag this Judgment!