Editorials       Cover Story   Letters
 Subscribe Now  Contact Us
Search  
 
Book Reviews
Case Study
Constitution of India
Cover Story
Crime File
Cyber Space
Good Living
Harvard Law School
Health & Fitness
Permanent Imprint Leading
   Cases
Know Your Judge
The Law and The Celebrity
Legal Articles
Legal Events
Law for Other Species
Law School Confidential
Legal Scanner
Legal Trotternama
Media Scan
Potpourri
Reasoning The Reasons
Street Lawyer
Study Abroad
Supreme Court Cases
Thinkers & Theory
Top Law Schools
Universal Law of Success
--------------- Print Magazine --------------
 
  May 2016
 
  April 2016
 
 
 
 
PERMANENT IMPRINT LEADING CASES

Article 16(2) of the Constitution prohibits Discrimination on ground of Place of Birth and not on ground of Residence

Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India , AIR 1984 SC 1420: (1984) 3 SCC 654: 1984 Ed Cas 237

Facts: A group of writ petitions raised a question of great national importance affecting admissions to medical colleges, both at the under-graduate and at the post-graduate levels. The question was whether, consistent with the constitutional values, admissions to a medical college or any other institutions of higher learning situate in a State can be confined to those who have their "domicile" within the State or who are resident within the State for a specified number of years or can any reservation in admissions be made for them so as to give them precedence over those who do not possess domicile or residential qualification within the State irrespective of merit.

Issue: Conflict between place of birth and place of residence in respect of discrimination.

Decision: It is clear on reading of the Constitution that it recognized only one domicile, namely, domicile in India. Article 5 of the Constitution is clear and refers to one domicile namely, domicile in the territory of India. Moreover, it must be remembered that India is not a Federal State in the traditional sense of that term. The concept of "domicile" has no relevance to the applicability of municipal laws, whether made by the Union of India or by the States. It would not, therefore, be right in the opinion of the court to say that a citizen of India is domiciled in one State or another forming part of the Union of India.

 
 
LAWYERS UPDATE
(Print Version)
Rs. 600/- per year
(Registered Post & Courier)
     
 

New Releases by UNIVERSAL's

     To avail discounts and for more details write to us at marketing.in@lexisnexis.com

Home     :      About Us     :      Subscribe     :      Advertise With Us    :       Privacy     :      Copyright     :      Feedback     :      Contact Us

Copyright © Universal Book Traders. All material on this site is subject to copyright. All rights reserved.
No part of this material may be reproduced, transmitted, framed or stored in a retrieval system for public or private
use without the written permission of the publisher. This site is developed and maintained by Universal Legal Infosolutions.
Powered by: Universal Book Traders