|
Support Us
Recent Court Verdicts

17th May 2007
SC referred the OBC quota case to larger bench

The Supreme Court on 17th of May 2006 referred the issue of 27% reservation for OBCs in central educational institutions to a larger Bench. Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan will now constitute the Bench, in which the controversial law will go through the apex court's scrutiny for the second time. A Bench of the court, consisting of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Lokeswar Singh Penta, while referring the case to a larger Bench, said, "The larger Bench will examine whether the government has got the powers to evolve reservation policies without any restrictions." The larger Bench will have to review the 93rd constitutional amendment by which Article 15(5) was inserted to provide reservation to the socially backward sections," the court said .

Read the full Supreme Court Order

17th April, 2007
The Orissa High Court upholds 50% limit.

The Orissa government has received a major setback in its reservation policy with the High Court upholding a judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Cuttack Bench of not exceeding reservation beyond 50 per cent in public services...

Read More

29th March 2007
SC Stayed the OBC Reservation Bill

In a landmark Order the Hon'able Supreme Court on 29th of March 2007 stayed the OBC reservation act passed by the Parliament. The Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and L S Panta delivered the verdict on the batch of petitions filed by Youth For Equality through various organizations and individuals challenging the decision as being ultra vires (unconstitutional). Te Bench stated that the Centre has to determine who are the socially and economically backward people of India, before the Central Educational Institutions Act can be given effect. The court also observed that the OBC quota was just vote back politics and...

Read the full Stay Order delivered by the Supreme Court)

23rd February 2007
SC upholds 'creamy layer' principle

The Supreme court while upholding creamy layer principle, directed the Govt of Kerala to redefine the criteria for Creamy layer.

Nair Service Society vs State of Kerala

11th January 2007
The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution

No law enacted by the Parliament is immune to judicial scrutiny. Even the laws in 9th schedule can be challenged in the Court.

I.R. Coelho (Dead) By LRs vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

19th October 2006
The Govt must provide compelling reasons for reservations.

We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse...

M Nagraj and others vs Union of India

8th August, 2006
Most backward classes can not be clubbed with OBCs

In a landmark judgment, the SC said that it is unfair tu club both MBCs and OBCs for reservations.

Atyant Pichhara Barg Chhatra Sangh & Anr vs Jharkhand State Vaishya Federation & Ors

29th May 2006
The SC asks the rationale for 27% reservations to OBCs

The highest court of the Country intervened and directed the agitating students medicos to call of the strike. At the same time the Court candidly asked the Government....

Read the Supreme Court's order of 29th May, 2006

7th November 2005
Andhra High Court says 'NO' to quota for Muslims

The Andhra High Court dismissed the Government Order providing reservations to Muslims.

B. Archana Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of A.P.

12th August 2005
There can be no reservation s in un-aided minority/ non-minority institutions

The Court said: So far as appropriation of quota by the State and enforcement of its reservation policy is concerned, we do not see much of difference between non-minority and minority unaided educational institutions. ….. the States have no power to insist on seat sharing in the unaided private professional educational institutions by fixing a quota of seats between the management and the State.

P. A. Inamdar and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others

5th November, 2004
The Scheduled Castes can not be further categorized

The Court observed that the members of Scheduled Castes form a class by themselves and any further sub-classification would be impermissible while applying the principle of reservation

E. V. Chinnaiah with M/s. Malamahanadu Registered Society Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Add to: DiggAdd to: Del.icio.usAdd to: RedditAdd to: StumbleUponAdd to: GoogleAdd to: TechnoratiAdd to: Newsvine

For more information:
Telephone Us: 011-46081209, 011-64598338, 91-9891155057, 91-9868340420
Email Us: info@youthforequality.com