Relying on landmark judgment of Apex Court here, a Division bench of AP High Court comprising the Chief Justice held that the rule [Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007] which mandates 3 years of practice as requirement from Junior Civil Judge positions in State of AP was unconstitutional and the Notification issued on 03 Dec 2020 was set aside.
U.Surekha Vs State of AP on 04 Mar 2021Another case got filed at Supreme Court here which was later withdrawn.
Orissa High Court held the NRIS Quota as an affront and unconstitutional.
Ishika Patnaik Vs National Law University of Odisha and Ors on 20 Oct 202011. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to observe that the NRIS category is an affront to the meritorious candidates who toiled day night to secure seats in NLUs through CLAT. The candidates belonging to the category of NRI/NRIS, who are very low ranked in the merit list often gets seat in the NLUs whereas the general candidates having secured better marks also lag behind the NRIS students and get disappointed. This is like the reservation for the elite class and this dubious category of quota is unconstitutional. The eligibility and selection under this category are unregulated, illegal and arbitrary. Even the apex court has observed in P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra that admissions under this category is given to less meritorious students just because they could afford to pay the higher fees demanded by the University. The Consortium of NLUs, the Bar Council of India and all the stake holders involved in the process should revisit the so-called NRIS quota and prepare a proper regulation and system while implementing this quota. Several studies reveal that the selection process under this NRIS quota is quite vague, undefined and is based on inconsistent parameters. This Court calls upon the relevant stake holders especially the Bar Council of India, which is mandated to regulate the legal education in this country to ensure that a uniform and well-defined parameter are adopted so that the meritorious candidates do not suffer. The elitist approach to selected group in CLAT Admission process must be restricted. It is imperative that this issue needs to be settled within a shortest possible time to assuage the pains of the unselected due to poor rank.
Chief Justice Gita Mittal in a Division Bench passed the order holding the ‘The Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001’ as Unconstitutional. Thereby, all the orders, transactions made on the strength of this Act and corresponding Rule are void ab initio.
Prof. S. K. Bhalla Vs State of JnK and Ors on 09 Oct 2020Citations :
Other Sources :
The Amendment Act brought by Karnataka Legislature was struck down as Unconstitutional and untravires to Parent Law, NLSIU Act 1986.
This apart, the Court held that the 5% concession to be given to Karnataka students (under the 25% domicile reservation) would tamper with the merit list, and therefore, is not permissible under the ambit of Article 14.
Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020IPC 377 – unnatural offences was struck down as Unconstitutional by Supreme Court.
Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India on 6 September, 2018Citations: [(2018) 10 SCC 1], [2018 SCC OnLine SC 1350],
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b965a9618a6816e6598fd54
Based on Joseph Shine landmark judgment here, Supreme Court has struck down the adultery section 497 in the Jammu and Kashmir Ranbir Penal Code 1932 as well.
Col. Rajnish Bhandari Vs Union of India on 02 August, 2019
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Landmark judgment from Apex Court which struck down Sec 497 IPC as ultravires with Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India.
Joseph Shine Vs Union of India on 27 September, 2018
Citations :
Other Sources :
Mr Subramanian Swamy got this section 6A of CBI’s DSPE Act (Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946) struck down as it was ultra vires to Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs Director CBI and Anr on 6 May, 1997In this landmark case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the following laws as being violative of Constitutional rights of Citizens.
Shreya Singhal Vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015
Citation: [(2015) 5 SCC 1], [2015 COMPLJ SC 2 143], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 248], [2015 AIR SC 1523], [2015 DLT 218 370], [2015 KLJ 2 292], [2015 KERLT 2 1], [2015 KLT 2 1]
Other Sources : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b244e561097e45a4e264
