Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 47 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 4 October, 2019
In Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
[(2019) 10 SCC 1], and Dr. Tanvi Behl Vs. Shrey Goel & Ors.
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180 the constitutional
permissibility of limited institutional preference was reiterated. In
these ratios it was opined that reservation on the basis of
"domicile" is impermissible in law but reserving seats upto 50%
for giving institutional preference is very well within the four
corners of law.
Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goel on 9 December, 2019
30. In light of the above observations, this Court finds that
the eligibility conditions and reservation policy notified through the
impugned addendum do not suffer from any constitutional
infirmity. They are in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution, and are not ultra vires to the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and hence this Court is
not inclined to interfere with a policy decision which is reasoned,
proportionate, and aligned with public interest.
Conclusion:
Vivek Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And ... on 25 September, 2003
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments
has upheld the validity of institutional and in-service preferences
to the extent of 50%, provided they are not excessive or arbitrary,
as in Saurabh Chaudri (Supra), the Hon'ble Court upheld
institutional preference to the extent of 50% as being
constitutionally valid.
Tamil Nadu Medical Officers ... vs Union Of India on 31 August, 2020
In Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association
(Supra) also, the Hon'ble Court upheld in-service reservation in
light of Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution, recognizing the
State's positive obligation to promote public health infrastructure.