Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.17 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Bihar Official Language Act, 1950
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Bihar Official Language Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
D. P. Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Bharat Andanother on 27 January, 1955
"6. But, it is clear that so far as admissions to an
educational institution such as a medical college
are concerned, Article 16(2) has no application. If,
therefore, there is any residence requirement for
admission to a medical college in a State, it cannot
be condemned as unconstitutional on ground of
violation of Article 16(2). Nor can Article 16(2) be
invoked for invalidating such residence
requirement because that article prohibits
discrimination on ground of place of birth and not
on ground of residence and as pointed out by this
Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat,
resident and place of birth are "two distinct
conceptions with different connotations both in law
and in fact". The only provision of the Constitution
on the touchstone of which such resident
requirement can be required to be tested is Article
14 and that is precisely the challenge which falls to
be considered by us in these writ petitions."
Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 23 March, 2001
As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (Supra), the same has no bearing in the
facts of the present case. In the said case, a particular Tribe was a
Scheduled Caste in both the State of Maharashtra and State of Madhya
Pradesh and the Chhindwara region to which the employee belonged
had gone into the State of Maharashtra and in that context the Supreme
Court while giving opportunity to the employer to refer the matter to the
Scrutiny Committee directed for reinstatement of the employee. This is
not the situation here.
T.R. Kapur & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 December, 1986
Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Kapur and others v. State of Haryana
and others [AIR 1987 Supreme Court 415] and our pointed attention has
been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 16 of the said
judgment, which reads as follows :
Rt. Rev. Magr. Mark Netto vs Govt. Of Kerala & Ors on 11 September, 1978
"46. In our opinion, there is one and only one
ground for declaring an Act of the legislature (or a
provision in the Act) to be invalid, and that is if it
clearly violates some provision of the Constitution
in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of
doubt. This violation can, of course, be in different
ways e.g. if a State Legislature makes a law which
only Parliament can make under List I to the
Seventh Schedule, in which case it will violate
Article 246(1) of the Constitution, or the law violates
some specific provision of the Constitution (other
than the directive principles). But before declaring
the statute to be unconstitutional, the court must be
absolutely sure that there can be no manner of
doubt that it violates a provision of the Constitution.
If two views are possible, one making the statute
constitutional and the other making it
unconstitutional, the former view must always be
preferred. Also, the court must make every effort to
uphold the constitutional validity of a statute, even if
that requires giving a strained construction or
32
narrowing down its scope vide Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark
Netto v. State of Kerala SCC para 6 : AIR para 6.
Also, it is none of the concern of the court whether
the legislation in its opinion is wise or unwise."