Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr vs The Union Of India & 3 Ors on 19 August, 2016
The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal and
Anr Vs The Union of India and Others [Civil Appeal No.6924
of 2021, dated 17.12.2021], submits that departmental
proceedings cannot be initiated against the persons with
50% permanent disability, wherein it has been held as
follows:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Patan Jamal Vali vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 April, 2021
This is not to say that
there is no requirement to establish a
causal link between the harm suffered
and the ground, but it is to recognize
that how a person was treated or
impacted was a result of interaction of
multiple grounds or identities. A true
reading of Section 3(2)(v) would entail
that conviction under this provision
can be sustained as long as caste
identity is one of the grounds for the
occurrence of the offence. In the view
which we ultimately take, a reference
of these decisions to a larger bench in
this case is unnecessary. We keep that
open and the debate alive for a later
date and case.”
In Patan Jamal Vali v. State of
109
Andhra Pradesh , this Court noted the
single-axis legislations which prohibit
discrimination based on a single ground
make it difficult for an individual
claiming differential treatment to
provide sufficient evidence because
often “evidence of discrete
discrimination or violence on a
specific ground may be absent or
difficult to prove.” While interpreting
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
6/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.17706 of 2021
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 (prior to the
amendment in 2015), this Court observed
that the terms “on the ground of” would
not entail proving that the offence
against a person belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe took
place solely on the ground of their
caste or tribal identity. If it is one
of the factors, it will fall within the
ambit of Section 3(2)(v). This Court
held thus:
1