Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in Kerala University Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Kerala University Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Kerala University Act, 1974
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
(i) in favour of any backward class of citizens; and (ii)
if it is not adequately represented in services under the
State. Caste only cannot be the basis for reservation.
Reservation can be for a backward class citizen of a
particular caste. Therefore,from that caste, creamy layer
and non-backward class of citizens are to be excluded. If
the caste is to be taken into consideration then for finding
out socially and economically backward class, creamy layer
of the caste is to be eliminated for granting benefit of
reservation, because that creamy layer cannot be termed as
socially and economically backward. These questions are
exhaustively dealt with by a nine Judge Bench of this Court
in Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC
217], and it has been specially held that `only caste'
cannot be the basis for reservation.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 September, 1995
(iii)Ashok Kumar Thakur - a case of unrealistic
elimination but Central Government's O.M. dated 8.9.93
approved: Such a case of unrealistic elimination of creamy
layer came up before this Court from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
and we shall refer to the same. This happened in Ashok
Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [1995 (5) SCC
403], already referred to. There the position was that
unrealistically high levels of income or holding or other
conditions were prescribed by the Legislatures of Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh under the Bihar Reservation of vacancies in
Posts and Services (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995 ( 5 of 1995)
and Schedule II read with Section 3(b) of the U.P. Public
Services Reservation for Schedules Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and other Backward Classes Act, 1994 ( Act 4 of 1994)
respectively. In that case, so far as Bihar was concerned,
Schedule III (except clause I), of the Bihar Ordinance and
so far as UP was concerned, Schedule II read with Section
3(b) of the U.P. Act were therefore quashed by this Court,
on the ground of discrimination.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
In
Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala [1973 (4) SCC
225], it was ruled that even constitutional amendments which
offended the basic structure of the Constitution would be
ultra vires the basic structure. Sikri, CJ. laid stress on
the basic features enumerated in the preamble to the
Constitution and said that there were other basic features
too which could be gathered from the Constitutional scheme
(para 506 A of SCC). Equality was one of the basic features
referred to in the Preamble to our Constitution. Shelat and
Grover, JJ. also referred to the basic rights referred to
in the Preamble. They specifically referred to equality
(para 520 and 535A of SCC). Hegde & Shelat, JJ. also
referred to the Preamble (paras 648, 652). Ray, J. (as he
then was) also did so (para 886). Jaganmohan Reddy, J. too
referred to the Preamble and the equality doctrine (para
1159). Khanna, J. accepted this position (para 1471).
Mathew, J. referred to equality as a basic feature(para
1621). Dwivedi, J.(para 1882, 1883) and Chandrachud, J.(as
he then was) (see para 2086) accepted this position. What
we mean to say is that Parliament and the legislatures in
this Country cannot transgress the basic feature of the
Constitution, namely, the principle of equality enshrined in
Article 14 of which Article 16(1) is a facet. Whether
creamy layer is not excluded or whether forward castes get
included in the list of backward classes, the position will
be the same, namely, that there will be a breach not only of
Article 14 but of the basic structure of the Constitution.