JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERS v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & OTHERS

Tools
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
Bench
DIPAK MISRA (CJI), KURIAN JOSEPH, R. F. NARIMAN, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL and INDU MALHOTRA
Citation
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 663
Whole judgment (for printing)

Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0

Judgment · Supreme Court of India · decided · Bench: DIPAK MISRA (CJI), KURIAN JOSEPH, R. F. NARIMAN, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL and INDU MALHOTRA

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 663

p. 706

A difference in language between this provision and Article 16(4-A) is important, and we decline the invitation of the learned Attorney General to say any more in this behalf.

2121. Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven–Judge Bench. However, the conclusion B in Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) is held to be invalid to this extent.

C Divya Pandey Referred issue answered.

Whole judgment (for printing)

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0