PATTALI MAKKAL KATCHIversusA. MAYILERUMPERUMAL & ORS.
2022 INSC 37831 March 2022Disposed off
The Tamil Nadu Legislature enacted the 2021 Special Reservation Act, earmarking 10.5% of the 20% reservation for Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs) for the Vanniyakula Kshatriya community. Several writ petitions challenged the Act on the ground that the State lacked legislative competence af…
RAM NATH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA
1984 INSC 9225 April 1984Dismissed
The petitioners, owners of land acquired under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948, challenged two provisos in Section 7(1)(e) that fixed compensation based on the market value as of September 1, 1939 plus 40 percent, arguing that they violated Section 299(2) of the Government of India Ac…
ASHOKA KUMAR THAKURversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS
2008 INSC 47310 April 2008Disposed off
The case challenged the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005, which inserted Article 15(5) into the Constitution, and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2005 (Act 5 of 2007), which provided 15% reservation for Scheduled Castes, 7.5% for Schedul…
SASANKA SEKHAR MAITY & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
1980 INSC 1199 May 1980Dismissed
The petitioners, raiyats in West Bengal, challenged the constitutionality of Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as amended in 1971 and 1972, alleging that the ceiling on agricultural holdings, the definition of "family", and related provisions violated Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitut…
K.K. POONACHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
2010 INSC 5747 September 2010Dismissed
The petitioners challenged the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 on the ground that it was not reserved for the President’s consideration and did not receive his assent as required by the now‑repealed Article 31(3). The Supreme Court examined whether the Act, enacted under Entry 5 of List II for city developmen…
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…