Court : Chennai
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2679; 2002(4)ALT33(SC); (2002)4CompLJ170(SC); II(2002)CPJ1(SC); [2002(94)FLR745]; (2002)3GLR830; [2002(3)JCR78(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC149; 2002(3)KLT25(SC); 2002LabIC264
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. A group of advocates practicing in the High Court of Madras filed a writ petition alleging that a sitting Judge of that High Court ceased to be a Judge as he was appointed as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry, (for short 'the State Commission') and prayed for an appropriate writ or other directions. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.3. The post of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Pondicherry was being manned by a retired High Court Judge. After the completion of this term of office, nobody else was willing to be considered for appointment as President of the State Commission. Pondicherry being a small Union Territory with limited financial resources could not afford to have a full-time President for the State Commission. The post was lying vacant for a considerable period. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Since both these petitions purporting to be PILs raise common issues of law and facts, the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Broad Controversy 2. PIL 84 of 2008 is filed by a practicing advocate who challenges the "Merit-cum-Means Scholarship Scheme for Students of Minority Communities" issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Minority Affairs on 1st April, 2008 (Exhibit `A' to the petition) on the ground that it discriminates against students belonging to the majority community only on the ground of religion. The petitioner has prayed that since the scheme is unconstitutional, it be cancelled. 3. PIL No.254 of 2009 is filed by a person who claims to be intensely interested, and is involved, in issues relating to women and children. The petitioner is the wife of a retired Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh and hence has been travelling around the State and the places wherever her husband was posted. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(2)KarLJ736; 2008(1)AIRKarR537; 2008LabIC(NOC)343(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, claiming the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, who has questioned tile action of the educational authorities of the state of Karnataka in disapproving the appointment of lecturers in the subjects of statistics and economics, appointing petitioners 2 and 3 for the posts by the first petitioner-management in terms of the order dated 30-5-2000 [Annexure-G] passed by the director of pre-university education and order dated 23-3-2000 [Annexure-H] also passed by the very authority, apprising the petitioners that the appointments are not approved for the reason that the first petitioner-society was required to follow the policy of reservation and that in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe & Other Backward Classes (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1292; 2008(3)CTC97; [2008(3)JCR176(SC)]; JT2008(5)SC1; (2008)3MLJ1105(SC); 2008(5)SCALE1; (2008)6SCC1; 2008AIRSCW2899; 2008(3)Supreme331; 2008(2)LH(SC)1534
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Reservation for admission in educational institutions or for public employment has been a matter of challenge in various litigations in this Court as well as in the High Courts. Diverse opinions have been expressed in regard to the need for reservation. Though several grounds have been raised to oppose any form of reservation, few in independent India have voiced disagreement with the proposition that the disadvantaged sections of the population deserve and need 'special help'. But there has been considerable disagreement as to which category of disadvantaged sections deserve such help, about the form this help ought to take and about the efficacy and propriety of what the government has done in this regard. 2. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who presided over the Congress Expert Committee emphasized before the Constituent Assembly that the removal of socio-economic inequalities was the highest priority. He believed that only this could make India a casteless and cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 152(2008)DLT132; 2008(106)DRJ241
Vipin Sanghi, J.WP(C) No. 4584/2008Rule.CM No. 8838/20081. The petitioners viz. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC), Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College, Shri Guru Nank Dev P.G. College, Shri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce, Mata Sundri College for Women have jointly filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the aforesaid four colleges, namely, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 which are being managed by the petitioner No. 1 DSGMC are Minority Educational Institutions (MEI for short) within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (NCMEI Act for short) and Section 2(f) of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (CEI (R and A) Act for short). They have also sought a declaration that the reservation policy of the Central Government for admission and recruitment of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is not enforceable against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. A direction is also sought th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2015Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another Petitioner(s) versus Union of India Respondent(s) With |WRIT PETITION (C) No.14 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.23 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.24 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.70 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.83 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.108 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.124 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.209 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.309 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.310 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.323 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.341 OF2015| |TRANSFER PETITION(C) No.391 OF2015 |TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.971 OF2015 | | JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.Index |Sl.No.|Contents |Paragraphs|Pages | |1. |The Recusal Order | 1 - 18| 1 - | | | | |15 | | | | | | |2. |The Reference Order | 1 - 101| 16 - 169| |I |The Challenge | 1 - | 16 - | | | |9 |19 | |II. |The Background to the Challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2600 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19574 of 2021) PATTALI MAKKAL KATCHI .... Appellant(s) Versus A. MAYILERUMPERUMAL & ORS. . Respondent (s) With Civil Appeal No.2601 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19378 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2602 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19916 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2603 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19776 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2604 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19582 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2605 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.5077 of 2022 @ Diary No.28073 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2606 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19658 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2607 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19401 of 2021) 1 | Pa ge Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19683 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2609 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.20167 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.21069 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2611 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.21070 of 2021) Civil Appeal Nos. 2612-2642 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) Nos.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR249(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. No election of municipal corporations, municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and other bodies had taken place in the State of Jharkhand for the last 22 years and it was only after the directions of Courts and demand of public when election programmes of the municipal corporations, municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and other bodies have been announced and published in the Gazette, these writ petitions have been filed challenging the vires of various provisions of Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act, specially the decision of the State Government and the State Election Commission reserving some of the posts of Mayor, Chairman and Vice-Chair-man of the Municipal Corporation and Municipalities for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes and women.2. In W.P. (C) No. 917 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the notification of the State Election Commission dated 28.1.2008 whereby the post of Mayor in Ranchi Municipal Corporation for a woman candidate belonging t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC162; 2005(1)ALD102(SC); 2004(5)CTC426; 2005(3)ESC426; [2005(2)JCR204(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC482; (2005)1MLJ79(SC); 2004(9)SCALE316; (2005)1SCC394; 2005(2)SLJ388(SC)
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. The validity of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 (A.P. Act 20 of 2000) was challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad which came to be dismissed by a five Judge Bench on a majority of 4 : 1, the court having certified the case as being fit for appeal to the Supreme Court, these appeals are now before us after the same was referred to a Constitution Bench by an order of this Court dated 25th June, 2001. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals without reference to previous litigations are as follows :-2. The State of Andhra Pradesh (the State) appointed a Commission headed by Justice Ramachandra Raju (Retd.) to identify the groups amongst the Scheduled Castes found in the List prepared under Article 341 of the Constitution of India by the President, who had failed to secure the benefit of the reservations provided for Scheduled Castes in the State in admission to professional colleges and...
Tag this Judgment!