State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors.
This case, pending before a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India,
addresses the constitutionality of sub-classifying Scheduled Castes (SCs) for
equitable reservation benefits.
Legal Questions
1. Can state governments sub-classify SC/ST groups within
constitutionally mandated reservations?
2. Does sub-classification violate Articles 14 (Equality before the law),
15(4), and 16(4) of the Constitution?
Constitutional Provisions and Precedents
● Article 341 & 342: Only Parliament can amend SC/ST lists.
● E.V. Chinnaiah Case (2004): Held that SCs are a single, homogeneous
group.
● State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020): Suggested that states can
allocate benefits without altering SC/ST lists.
Implications
Highlights of the Judgment:
1. Recognition of Heterogeneity Within SCs: The Court acknowledged
that the SC category comprises diverse sub-castes with varying degrees
of social and educational backwardness. This recognition challenges the
notion of SCs as a single, homogeneous group.
2. State Authority to Sub-Classify: The judgment empowers state
governments to create sub-classifications within the SC category to
ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits. This means states
can identify and provide additional support to sub-castes that are more
disadvantaged.
3. Alignment with Sub-Classification in OBCs: Drawing parallels with the
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, where sub-classification
among Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was permitted, the Court
extended similar principles to SCs. This approach aims to promote
substantive equality by addressing intra-category disparities.
4. Overruling E.V. Chinnaiah Precedent: The Court overruled the E.V.
Chinnaiah decision, which had prohibited sub-classification within SCs.
The current judgment emphasizes that such sub-classification does not
violate constitutional provisions, provided it aims to achieve equitable
distribution of benefits.
5. Constitutional Provisions Considered: The Court interpreted Articles 14
(Right to Equality), 15(4), and 16(4) of the Constitution, concluding that
sub-classification within SCs is permissible to ensure that the most
marginalized receive adequate support.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling will critically impact the interpretation of
equality under the Constitution and set a benchmark for balancing the
homogeneous categorization of SCs with the need for distributive justice. The
decision is pivotal in shaping affirmative action frameworks in India.
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors.
Date of Judgment: 15.02.2024
Bench Strength: 5 Judges
Composition of Bench: CJI D Y Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R
Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
Case Background:
● Challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution to the Electoral Bond
Scheme and amendments made by the Finance Act, 2017, impacting:
○ RBI Act, 1934
○ Representation of the People Act, 1951
○ IT Act, 1961
○ Companies Act, 2013
Issues:
● Amendments to Section 31(3) of RBI Act allowed the issuance of
electoral bonds by scheduled banks.
● Removal of caps and disclosure requirements for corporate
contributions under Section 182 of Companies Act, 2013.
● Amendments to IT Act, exempting political parties' income via electoral
bonds from taxation under Section 13A.
Verdict:
● Declared Electoral Bond Scheme and amendments unconstitutional for
violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(a).
● Directed disclosure of donor details, contributions, and credits for
electoral bonds.
● Ordered cessation of Electoral Bond issuance and return/refund of
unencashed bonds.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 13.05.2024
Bench Strength: 2 Judges
Composition of Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Abhay S. Oka
Case Background:
● Concerned untreated solid waste (3800 tonnes daily) within Delhi's
MCD limits due to lack of treatment facilities.
Issues:
● Violation of Article 21 due to environmental degradation from waste
mismanagement.
Verdict:
● Directed immediate measures to halt the increase of untreated solid
waste.
● Ordered the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to
convene a meeting of all stakeholders and submit a solution to the
Court.
● Warned of drastic orders if no actionable steps are taken to protect
Delhi’s environment.
Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D. K. Gandhi
Date of Judgment: 14.05.2024
Bench Strength: 2 Judges
Composition of Bench: Justice Pankaj Mittal, Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Case Background:
● A complaint was filed alleging that the advocate did not transfer
received payment to the client and instead filed a recovery suit for fees.
● The District Consumer Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, but
the State Commission held that legal services do not fall under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act).
Key Issues:
1. Do professionals like advocates fall under the CP Act, 1986 or 2019?
2. Is the legal profession sui generis (unique)?
3. Do legal services constitute a "contract of personal service" under
Section 2(42) of the CP Act?
Verdict:
● Advocates’ services are excluded from the CP Act as they fall under a
"contract of personal service."
● Legal profession is unique (sui generis) and cannot be compared with
other professions.
● Suggested revisiting Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995)
to reassess its applicability to professionals.
Relevant Provision:
● Section 2(42) of the CP Act, 2019: Defines "service" and excludes
personal services.
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India
Date of Judgment: 30.07.2024
Bench Strength: 3 Judges
Composition of Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and
Manoj Misra
Case Background:
● Petition under Article 32 challenging excessive fees charged by State
Bar Councils (SBCs) during advocate enrollment.
● Fees varied from ₹15,000 to ₹42,000, including miscellaneous charges
like welfare and administration fees.
Key Issues:
1. Are additional charges by SBCs for enrollment valid under Section 24
of the Advocates Act, 1961?
2. Do high fees violate the Right to Equality and Profession?
Verdict:
● SBCs cannot charge fees beyond those prescribed under Section 24(1)(f)
of the Advocates Act.
● Enrollment fees capped at ₹750 for general and ₹125 for SC/ST
categories.
● Charging high fees violates equality and dignity, especially for
marginalized sections.
● No refunds on fees already paid.
Relevant Provision:
● Section 24 of Advocates Act, 1961: Prescribes conditions and fees for
advocate enrollment.
Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal
Date of Judgment: 29.08.2024
Bench Strength: 2 Judges
Composition of Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and JB Pardiwala
Case Background:
● Dowry harassment led to the suicide of a woman. Conviction under
Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 IPC.
● High Court upheld convictions; mother-in-law’s case abated due to her
death.
Key Issues:
● Sufficiency of evidence for dowry death under Section 304B IPC.
Verdict:
● Conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside for lack of evidence
connecting cruelty with dowry demands.
● Acquitted the sister-in-law but upheld the husband’s conviction under
Sections 306 and 498A IPC.
● Emphasized that presumptions under Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act require strict proof of dowry-related cruelty.
Relevant Provisions:
● Section 304B IPC: Dowry death.
● Section 113B Evidence Act: Presumption of dowry death.
In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India
Date of Judgment: 11.12.2023
Bench Strength: 5 Judges
Composition of Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul,
Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant
Case Background:
● Petitioners challenged the abrogation of Article 370 through
Presidential Orders and enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganization Act, 2019.
Key Issues:
● Constitutionality of abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of Jammu
and Kashmir into Union Territories.
Verdict:
● Upheld abrogation of Article 370, stating it was a transitional provision
without permanent character.
● Abrogation aligns with constitutional integration and does not negate
federalism.
● Article 370(3) provided the mechanism for ending temporary
arrangements.
Relevant Provision:
● Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019: Bifurcated Jammu and
Kashmir into two Union Territories.
Rajendra S/O Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment: 15.05.2024
Bench Strength: 2 Judges
Composition of Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Abhay S. Oka
Case Background:
● Accused (husband) convicted under Section 302 IPC for burning his
wife Rekha after subjecting her to cruelty.
● Prosecution relied on dying declarations, medical records, and witness
testimonies.
Key Issues:
● Admissibility and reliability of multiple dying declarations.
Verdict:
● Upheld conviction under Section 302 IPC based on consistency in dying
declarations.
● Reiterated that a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction
if found to be voluntary and truthful.
● Cited Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958) and subsequent cases on
dying declarations.
