Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2004 (5) TMI 606 - SC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court upholds 50% institutional reservation in PG courses, clarifies All-India quota application. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of institutional reservation in postgraduate courses, limiting it to 50% of total seats. The Court ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                            Supreme Court upholds 50% institutional reservation in PG courses, clarifies All-India quota application.

                            The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of institutional reservation in postgraduate courses, limiting it to 50% of total seats. The Court clarified that the 50% All-India quota for PG seats, mandated in a previous judgment, should be applied prospectively from the next academic year, maintaining the ongoing admission process at a 25% quota. A dissenting opinion argued for immediate implementation of the 50% quota. The Court emphasized merit-based admissions and the prospective application of legal judgments to ensure fairness in admissions.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Constitutionality of reservation based on residence or institutional preference in PG courses.
                            2. Implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment dated November 4, 2003, regarding the All-India quota for PG seats.
                            3. Prospective applicability of the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Constitutionality of Reservation Based on Residence or Institutional Preference in PG Courses:
                            The Court examined whether any reservation based on residence or institutional preference is constitutionally permissible in postgraduate (PG) courses. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of institutional reservation, noting that such reservations are reasonable and in public interest. The Court referenced the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain, where it was held that institutional preference should not exceed 50% of the total seats. This principle was reiterated in subsequent cases, including Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Magan Mehrotra. The Court emphasized that the merit of students should be judged on the basis of a common entrance test held nationwide.

                            2. Implementation of the Supreme Court's Judgment Dated November 4, 2003:
                            The judgment mandated that the All-India quota for PG seats should be increased to 50% from the existing 25%. The process of admission for the current academic year had already commenced based on the 25% quota. The Court clarified that the decision in Saurabh Chaudri's case should be applied prospectively, thus excluding the ongoing admission process from its operation. The Court directed that the allotment of seats under the All-India quota for the current year should remain confined to 25%. Consequently, applications seeking to implement the 50% quota for the current year were dismissed, and the interim stay on counselling was vacated.

                            3. Prospective Applicability of the Judgment in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India:
                            The Court addressed whether the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri should be applied prospectively from the academic year 2005-06. The Court held that the judgment should be applied prospectively, excluding the ongoing admission process. The Court noted that the Union of India and other states were aware of the judgment but did not implement it immediately. The Court emphasized that a judgment declaring the law may affect rights retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. The Court concluded that the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri should be given full effect from the next academic year to ensure that merit prevails in admissions.

                            Separate Judgment:
                            One judge dissented, arguing that the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri should be implemented immediately, even for the ongoing admission process. The dissenting opinion emphasized that the declaration of law should affect the rights of the parties retrospectively and that the judgment should be given full effect to ensure that meritorious students are not disadvantaged.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Supreme Court clarified that the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, which mandated a 50% All-India quota for PG seats, should be applied prospectively from the next academic year. The ongoing admission process, which commenced based on a 25% quota, should not be disturbed. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of institutional reservation, emphasizing that merit should be the primary criterion for admissions.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found