Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

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