Only 50% Job Reservation is Permissible: SC said in CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO VS STATE OF A.P – 22/04/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Providing 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes in scheduled areas offends the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Governor is not conferred power to make any law in derogation to Part III or other provisions of the Constitution of India in the exercise of his power under Clause I, Para 5 of Schedule V. It was also held that G.O.Ms. No.3 is discriminatory as the same adversely affects not only the open category candidates but also other Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and backward classes. It also opined that the reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%.

SC cannot direct to postpone trust vote if any one or more Members do remain absent

Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. Vs Speaker-13/04/2020- Trust Vote- Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors-Whether the Governor is entrusted with the authority to call for a trust vote in the course of a ―running assembly‖, and Second whether the Governor exercised this authority correctly. If the Governor does not possess the authority, the action of calling for an immediate floor test is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Alternatively, if the Governor does possess the authority to call for a floor test, this Court must determine the contours of such power and answer the question of whether the Governor acted within those contours.

Can a “special Court” under SC/ST Act, take direct cognizance without committal proceeding

Gangula Ashok and another  Vs State of ANDHRA PRADESH-28/01/2000.-we have no doubt that a Special Court under this Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straightway be laid before the Special Court under the Act.