Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001

9 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SALAUDDIN AHMED & ANR.versusSAMTA ANDOLAN

2012 INSC 35929 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan Government issued notifications granting reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which were later quashed by the Rajasthan High Court because the State had not complied with the quantifiable data requirements laid down in M. Nagaraj's case. General‑category employees filed civi

JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERSversusLACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & OTHERS

2018 INSC 88126 September 2018Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined a slew of petitions seeking a referral of the M. Nagaraj judgment to a larger bench, focusing on the validity of its requirement that States collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) for promotion reservations. The Court held that while t

PRAVAKAR MALLICK & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

2020 INSC 33917 April 2020Dismissed

The petitioners, officers of the Orissa Administrative Service‑II, were senior to SC/ST officers appointed to reserved vacancies and were later promoted to OAS‑I (JB). After the 85th Constitution Amendment amended Art.16(4A) to permit states to grant promotion with consequential seniority to SC/STs, the State of Orissa

ROHTAS BHANKHAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2014 INSC 48515 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the validity of a 1997 Office Memorandum that withdrew an earlier 1970 order which had relaxed qualifying marks for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in departmental promotion examinations. The appellants argued that the withdrawal violated the constitutional provisions allowing reservat

SOCIETY FOR UN-AIDED P.SCHOOL OF RAJASTHANversusU.O.I. & ANR.

2012 INSC 16912 April 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, particularly sections 3, 12(1)(b) and 12(1)(c), which impose admission and fee‑reimbursement obligations on schools. The petitioners argued that these provisions infringed the fundamental rights o

B K PAVITRA AND ORS.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2019 INSC 67110 May 2019Dismissed

The Karnataka government enacted the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 to grant consequential seniority to SC/ST promotees, after the earlier 2002 Act was struck down in *B K Pavitra I* for lacking the data required under *M. Nagaraj*. T

B. K. PAVITRA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 1219 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2002, which granted consequential seniority to SC/ST government servants promoted under reservation and protected seniority accorded since 1978. Petitioners challenged the Act as violativ

JANHIT ABHIYANversusUNION OF INDIA

2022 INSC 11757 November 2022Disposed off

The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 amended Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution to empower the State to provide up to 10% reservation for 'economically weaker sections' (EWS) of citizens, excluding Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and the non-creamy layer of Other Backward Classes.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusDAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 5621 August 2024Reference answered

The Supreme Court, by a 6:1 majority, overruled its earlier decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation is constitutionally permissible. The Court examined whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous class under Artic

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search