ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

JudgmentSubscribe to Judgment

On the Maratha Reservations Judgment: Part II

Apart from holding the Maratha reservations unconstitutional, the Supreme Court also interpreted the 102nd amendment to take away the power of state governments to designate communities as “socially and educationally backward classes.” This particular aspect of the Court’s judgment is poorly reasoned, goes contrary to the express provisions of the Constitution and threatens to upset well-set principles and practices in relation to reservations in India.

On Maratha Reservations Judgment: Part-1

The Supreme Court’s constitution bench judgment striking down the Maharashtra government’s reservations for Marathas has affirmed and applied well-accepted tests laid down in the Indra Sawhney judgment. However, it has also missed an opportunity to re-examine the artificially imposed 50% limit on reservations in jobs and seats. The justification for retaining the same, however, could also affect reservations for the economically weaker sections.

Gujarat Riots: Rushing to Judgment

Justice Nanavati's comments to the press on the nature of the Gujarat riots last year are premature. His 'clean chit' may result in all-round fear preventing people from coming forward to register their genuine grievances and losses.

Mutuality of Interest in Excise Valuation

From an analysis of the legal pronouncements on the subject it is clear that in the absence of mutuality of interest between two firms there cannot be any legitimate conclusion that they are related persons, even if they are principal and subsidiary.
Back to Top