Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC  ||  Delhi High Court: Elective Surgery Does Not Bar Grant of Interim Bail on Medical Grounds  ||  Delhi HC: Consensual Romance With Minor Nearing 18 May be Considered For Bail in POCSO Case  ||  Delhi HC: Not Named In FIR Doesn’t Matter If Financial Links Show Active Role in NDPS Offence  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Rape is an Affront to Womanhood and a Brutal Violation of The Right To Life  ||  Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act    

Sandeep and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - (27 Oct 2015)

Domiciling a special class: a new reservation

MANU/SC/1227/2015

Education

The Supreme Court, hearing petitions against State policies of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu to restrict eligibility of students to super-specialty medical institutes to those domiciled in the state, held that the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh enjoyed a special privilege granted under Article 371D of the Constitution and Presidential Order of 1979. As such, petitions, so far as they pertained to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, were dismissed, however the legality of such restrictions in Tamil Nadu will be heard from 4 November, 2015.

Justice Misra could only reiterate the hapless situation the nation found itself in, with State interests placed in priority of the whole: “…though there has been a progressive change. The said privilege remains unchanged, as if to compete with eternity”. ‘Change’ there certainly has been, with States bullishly defending their ‘special status’ in recent times, enabling them not only to enact their own laws on property ownership, education and reservation, but to excluded national legislation. Only recently did the Jammu and Kashmir High Court reiterate that the State’s fractious relationship with the country tugged on the sole tether that is Article 370, which fastened it to the rest of the Constitution, and indeed, India.

Relevant : Ashok Kumar and Ors v. State of J&K and Ors

Faculty Association of All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India MANU/SC/0719/2013 Article 371D Special Provisions for Andhra Pradesh Act

Tags : ARTICLE 370   ARTICLE 371   SPECIAL CLASS   ANDHRA PRADESH   TELANGANA  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved