SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

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