In the case of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963), the Supreme Court examined the extent of reservations provided under Article 15(4) (provision for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes). The Court held that while the state can make reservations, it must be reasonable and cannot be excessive. The Court observed that a reservation of 68% was excessive and would amount to a "fraud on the Constitution" as it would practically destroy the guarantee of equality of opportunity. This case is significant for introducing the idea of a 50% ceiling on reservations (except in extraordinary circumstances) and for using the phrase "fraud on the Constitution" in relation to excessive reservation.
"Excessive reservation would be fraud on the Constitution of India" was observed by the Supreme Court in
Asked in WBCS Main Paper 5 2019 · Topic: The Supreme Court (Landmark Judgments and Doctrines)
More Indian Polity and Governance questions
- When a Court declares certain provisions of an Act invalid, it does not affect the validity of the entire Act, according to
- The doctrine of prospective overruling was first evolved by Justice Subba Rao in
- "What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly". This statement epitomizes the doctrine of
- Which among the following is not a correctly matched pair ? (Case) (Year of Judgement of Supreme Court)
- Who among the following Judges of the Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Aadhaar Scheme and Act case on 26 September, 2018 dissented from the majority verdict?
- In the verdict of which case, the Supreme Court of India has laid down that Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution? (1) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 2000 (2) R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1994 (3) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 (4) D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 (5) Question not attempted
- Read the following important judgments and find their correct chronological order : (i) Charu Khurana & Others vs. Union of India (ii) N. K. Bajpai vs. Union of India (iii) State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. The correct chronological sequence is
- Which of the following statements is not correct? (a) Passive euthanasia was made legal in India by Supreme Court of India in 2018. (b) For passive euthanasia, patients must consent through a living will. (c) The judgement was passed by a 5-member Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in case of Pinki Virani. (d) For passive euthanasia patients must be either terminally ill or in a vegetative state.