Article 16, Constitution

57 Constitutional Cases in Brief: Quick Notes

Issue: Can the government choose judges even when the Chief Justice disagrees?

48 min read 16 Oct 2026

57 Landmark Constitutional Cases: Complete Notes

About this topic ▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00) These notes cover the 57 most important cases of Indian Constitutional Law . They are the cases that keep coming up in LL.B. examinations, in judiciary examinations and in every serious discussion of constitutional law. Every case is studied…

411 min read 16 Oct 2026

Administrative Actions Meaning Nature, Scope and Significance

Administrative actions refer to actions taken under administrative law, which deals with the powers and duties of government authorities. These actions are legal measures related to public administrative bodies, aimed a…

9 min read 9 Sep 2026

Administrative Law One Shot

Administrative law is "the law relating to the administration. It determines the organization, powers, and duties of administrative authorities.

61 min read 9 Sep 2026

Constitution II One Shot

A child born in India before July 1, 1987, automatically acquired Indian citizenship regardless of their parents' nationality.

57 min read 9 Sep 2026

Constitutional Law II: Complete Notes

Constitutional Law II deals with civil liberties. It is studied in eight units, from the question of who is a citizen of India to how the Constitution enforces the rights it gives. These rights are at work in ordinary life: when a person speaks his mind online, prays in his own way, or is stopped b…

130 min read 16 Oct 2026

What Is Rule of Law in Administrative Law?

The term "Rule of Law" comes from the French expression 'La Principe de Legalite,' meaning the principle of legality. It refers to a government system based on law and justice, in contrast to a dictatorship.

14 min read 9 Sep 2026

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment, which inserted Article 15(5), and the Central Educational Institutions Reservation in Admission Act, 2006, including 27% O.B.C. reservation in central institutions such as I.I.T.s, I.I.M.s and central universities. It held that the creamy layer must be excluded from O.B.C. reservation, but not from S.C./S.T. (as the law stood then). It also held that excluding minority institutions does not violate Article 14. The case is a key decision on balancing reservation in higher education with merit, equality and the basic structure.

In Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), the Supreme Court interpreted Article 233. It held that people already in judicial service, or with mixed experience as advocate and judge, cannot apply for the 25% direct recruitment (Bar) quota for District Judges. That quota is only for practising advocates with at least seven years of practice. Students must also know that a five-judge Constitution Bench expressly overruled this decision on 9 October 2025 in Rejanish K. V. v. K. Deepa.

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 6:3 majority, upheld 27% reservation for O.B.C.s in central government jobs. It struck down the 10% reservation based only on economic criteria. It laid down the core rules of Indian reservation law: caste can be a class, the creamy layer must be excluded, reservation should generally not exceed 50%, sub-classification is allowed, and there is no reservation in promotion. These rules still form the backbone of reservation law.

In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Seventy-seventh, Eighty-first, Eighty-second and Eighty-fifth Constitutional Amendments on reservation in promotion for S.C. and S.T. employees. It held that these are only enabling provisions, and that a State must show compelling reasons through quantifiable data before granting such reservation. The case shaped the law on reservation in promotions and strengthened the basic structure doctrine.

In this 2014 case, the Supreme Court legally recognised transgender persons as a 'third gender'. It held that every person can decide their own gender identity (self-identification) without any medical test or surgery. It also held that this right is protected under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21. The case is a landmark because it gave transgender persons an independent legal identity for the first time and directed the Centre and the States to protect their rights.

The Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, a statutory body created under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, is 'State' under Article 12. It held that 'other authorities' must be read broadly and not limited by the rule of ejusdem generis, so fundamental rights and writs apply against such bodies. The case started the wide reading of Article 12 that later courts built on.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held, by a majority of four to one, that statutory corporations such as O.N.G.C., L.I.C. and the Industrial Finance Corporation are 'State' under Article 12. Regulations made under their Acts have the force of law, so an employee removed in breach of them can get a declaration that he continues in service, not just damages. The case matters because it brought public sector corporations under constitutional accountability, and Justice Mathew's concurring opinion laid the seed of the later 'instrumentality' test.