SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

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