TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019 was unconstitutional as an impermissible attempt to nullify earlier judicial decisions and apply reservation to the ongoing NEET-UG admission process. (ii) Whether the amended Section 16(2), particularly the special clause for NEET-based admissions, was invalid for retrospectively altering the cut-off for application of the SEBC Act to educational admissions.
Issue (i): Whether the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019 was unconstitutional as an impermissible attempt to nullify earlier judicial decisions and apply reservation to the ongoing NEET-UG admission process.
Analysis: The challenge was examined on the touchstone of legislative competence and the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court noted that the earlier decisions relied upon by the petitioners dealt with postgraduate admissions and, in any event, a legislature may validly amend the law retrospectively if it removes the basis of the earlier decision. The amendment was held to clarify the point at which the reservation regime would apply to NEET-governed admissions and did not amount to a legislative overruling of any final judgment.
Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of the SEBC Amendment Act, 2019 on this ground failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the amended Section 16(2), particularly the special clause for NEET-based admissions, was invalid for retrospectively altering the cut-off for application of the SEBC Act to educational admissions.
Analysis: The Court construed Section 16(2) on its plain language and held that the explanation, including the newly inserted clause for NEET and similar national entrance tests, specifically fixed the relevant cut-off for State quota admissions. The provision was treated as a clear legislative choice applicable to a defined class of admissions and not as an attempt to invalidate any binding judicial decision. The Court found no ambiguity in the amended text warranting a restrictive reading in favour of the petitioners.
Conclusion: The amended provision was upheld as valid and applicable to the admissions in question.
Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on merits and the amendment was sustained, leaving the reservation framework operative for the relevant admissions.
Ratio Decidendi: A legislature may retrospectively amend a statute and prescribe the basis of its operation so long as it does not directly set aside a final judicial decision and the amendment is within legislative competence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
