Save Copy to Evern

Last updated: 25 Dec 2021

Copy of Supreme court judgements

On reservation in promotion
1. M nagraj case 2006: Here SC laid down three condition for
reservations in promotion:
1. Particular community Myst be backward
2. Inadequate representation
3. Providing reservation would not affect administrative
efficiency.
2. Jarnail Singh case 2018: in both nagraj and jarnail cases SC has
said that there should be a creamy layer within SC/St in
promotion But here SC said unlike the nagraj case no need to
show quantifiable data of backwardness as according to 9 judge
Indra sawhney 1992 bench, SC /St by definition mean backward
3. Indra swahney judgement said no reservations in promotion. But
govt brought 77thAA in 1995 to add article 4(A) that provided
reservation in promotion. Article 335 was amended to lower
marks for SC/St in exam. This two amendments we're challenged
in m nagraj case.
4. In ashoka Kumar case 2007, KG balakrishnan said it is imp to
identify who deserves benefit of reservation within the reserved
category.

On RTI
1. RAJ NARAIN CASE 1974 , SC says RTI is derived from 19(1)
(a)
2. PUCL vs UOI 2004- RTI is under art 19(1)(a)
:
 2. PUCL vs UOI 2004- RTI is under art 19(1)(a)

Elections
1. ADR case 2002- made it compulsory for candidate’s past criminal
record to be made public in the election afffidavit
2. Ramesh dalal case 2005- sitting MP/MLA if convicted for a crime
with jail tenure of 2 or more years would stand ineligible to
contest elections.
3. PUCL case 2013- NOTA option
4. Lily thomas case 2013- Sitting MP,MLA,MLC convicted by a
lower court for a crime haivng punishment > 2 years will be
immediately disqualified from his seat and won’t be allowed to
contest elections for 6 years after the jail term.
5. Public interest foundation case 2018 - wherein the party has to
publish in media about the criminal records of its candidates.
6. SC in 2020 has asked political parties to explain reasons for
giving tickets to candidates with criminal antecedents

Miscellaneous
1. S poonawalla vs UOI SC asked centre to make law on lynching
2. Joseph shine case ( adultry 497)
3. MC mehta case- right to live in pollution free environmemt
4. Macchi singh (1983) and devender pal singh(2002): SC said
death penalty to be given only in rarerest of rare case
5. hussain ara khatoon vs home secy bihar (1980) said speedy trial is
a right under article 21
6. vineet narain case : SC said CBI director must be protected from
political interfenrence
7. SC in kedarnath case clearly defined what sedition is and what it
is not and said merely possession of seditious literature or just
being a member of a banned or does not amount to seditoion.
:
 being a member of a banned or does not amount to seditoion.
8. Shirur mutt case 1955 , SC gave essential practices doctrine
9. SC in Minerva mills case 1980 said indian constitution is based
on the bedrock of harmonisation
10. CK Daphtary vs OP Gupta,1971 , contempt of court is a
reasonable restriction on art 19(1)(a)
11. waman rao case, 1981: SC reiterated basic structure and drew
24th april, 1973 as the cut off date for 9th schedule. IR coelho ,
2007, SC reiterated that mere placing laws under 9th schedule
does not guarentee immunity from judicial review.

Office of profit:
Mentioned in article 102 and 103 corresponding to
disqualification of legislators.
SC in prodyut bordoloi vs swapan roy case 2001 outlined
following questions for the test:
Whether the govt makes appointment and has power of
removal
Whether the govt pays remuneration
Functions of the holder and does he perform them for
the govt
Does govt hold any control over the performance of
those functions
In jaya bachchan vs UOI 2006 SC has said non financial
benefits also amount to remuneration.
Divya Prakash case- even if appointment is honorary
Shibu Soren case- office brings person under the influence
of the govt

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Report Spam

: