Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

(Record of Proceedings),Writ Petition (Civil) No. 930 of 1990 with W.P (C) Nos. 97 of 1991, 948, 966, 953, 954, 971, 972, 949, 965, 986, 1079, 1087, 1106, 1158, 1071, 1069, 1077, 1119, 1053, 1102, 1120, 1112, 1276, 1148, 1105, 1128, 974, 1114, 987, 1061, 1064, 1101, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1130, 1141, 1307, 1362, 972 of 1990, 343, 97 of 1991, T.P (C) No. 27 of 1990, T.C Nos. 28-31, 32-33, 34-35, 65 of 1990, I.A Nos. 3 & 4 of 1990, 1-20 of 1991, decided on December 4, 1991

Disposition

remanded

Advocates

Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, K.K Venugopal, Senior Advocate, M.H Beg, Senior Advocate, Ms Shyamla Pappu, Senior Advocate, P.P Rao, Senior Advocate, Gopal Subramaniam, Senior Advocate, Vasant Sathe, Senior Advocate, L.G Havanur, Senior Advocate, S.C Roy, Advocate General, Orissa, K.C Bajaj, Advocate P.S Poti, Senior Advocate, Ms Indra Sawhney, M.A Phrose, Ms A. Subhashini, M/s P. Parameswaran, R. Sasiprabhu, M.T George, D.B Vohra, Jagdish Prasad, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, P.C Kapur, J.B Dadachanji, S. Kachawaha, Ms Lira Goswami, M/s S. Sukumaran, Ravi Kumar Verma, S.N Bhat, K. Vasdev, A. Kirpal, M.J Paul, P. Munnick, A.K Panda, T.T Kunhikannan, R.K Mehta, Rajesh, A. Subba Rao, Ranjan Dwivedi, M.K Garg, Suresh Menon, R. Mohan, Ms K. Hingorani, Ms Chitra Markandeya, M/s C.S Srinivasa Rao, K.K Gupta, Randhir Jain, S.R Setia, T.S Vaidyanathan, K.R.R Pillai, B.S Chauhan, B.D Sharma, petitioner-in-person, K.M Kashyap, B.B Singh, E.M.S Anam, Pravir Chaudhary, A.L Trehan, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms Kamini Jaiswal, M/s M.K.D Namboordiri, R.D Upadhyay, N. Sudhakaran, V. Krishna Murthy, M. Veerappa, Jitender Sharma, D.K Garg, P.P Singh, Ms Bina Gupta, A.S Bhasme, Aruneshwar Gupta, Manik Karanjiwala, T.V.S.N Chari, S.K Agnihotri, P.K Manohar, Indra Makwana, K.R Nambiar, R.K Maheshwari Ms Kusum Chaudhary, M/s K.M.K Nair, G. Prabhakar, Ms Lalitha Kaushik, Mahavir Singh, Ms H. Wahi, S.K Jain, Ms V.D Khanna, Ms Rani Jethmalani, M/s Manoj Prasad, C.L Sahu, Ms Aruna Mathur, S.B Upadhyay, L.K Pandey, Indeevar Goodwill, B.S Gupta, J.R Das, D. Sinha, Attar Singh, Mukul Mudgal, M.K Michael, K. Swami, N.S Bisht, Harish Uppal, C.S.S Rao, Subramanyam and petitioner-in-person, for the appearing parties.
Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following

Judges

M.H Kania
M.N Venkatachaliah
S. Ratnavel Pandian
Dr. T.K Thommen
A.M Ahmadi
Kuldip Singh
P.B Sawant
R.M Sahai
B.P Jeevan Reddy, JJ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Several writ petitions have been filed challenging a Government Notification dated 25 September 1991. During the proceedings recorded in this order, the Learned Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the Government expects to finalise the requisite economic criteria by 28 January 1992. The Court tagged W.P. No. 1094 of 1991 with the existing batch of petitions, condoned the delay in filing amendment applications, and allowed those amendments to be incorporated in the original petitions. Directions were also issued for filing counter-affidavits, rejoinders, and concise written submissions before the next hearing date.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the delay in filing amendment applications challenging the Notification dated 25 September 1991 should be condoned.
Whether the amendment applications themselves should be allowed and incorporated into the original writ petitions.
Whether any interim order altering the previously granted stay is required before the final hearing scheduled for 28 January 1992.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court adopted a procedural focus in this order:

It accepted the statement of the Learned Additional Solicitor General that the Government would finalise the economic criteria by 28 January 1992, and set that date for final hearing.
Recognising the need for complete pleadings, the Court condoned the delay in filing amendment applications and permitted those amendments so the petitions could fully address the impugned Notification.
Timeframes were fixed for counter-affidavits (three weeks) and rejoinders (one week thereafter) to ensure an orderly exchange of pleadings.
The Court declined to modify the existing stay, reasoning that, since the economic criteria were not yet determined and the matter was listed for an early final hearing, no immediate implementation of the Notification was likely.
Administrative directions were issued requiring counsel to file concise written submissions, limited to five pages of propositions and citations, to streamline the forthcoming oral hearing and facilitate time allocation.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The delay in filing amendment applications is condoned; the amendment applications are allowed; amendments are to be carried out within one week; deadlines for counter-affidavits, rejoinders, and written submissions are fixed; the matters are listed for final hearing on 28 January 1992; and no change is made to the existing stay order.

Implications: The petitioners may proceed with their amended challenges to the Notification without procedural hindrance, while the Government must clarify the economic criteria before the scheduled hearing. The order maintains the status quo regarding the Notification’s implementation and does not establish any new substantive precedent beyond procedural scheduling.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India And Others

Order

1. Learned Additional Solicitor General states that the government definitely expects to be able to fix the economic criteria by January 28, 1992.

2. W.P No. 1094 of 1991 be tagged on with these cases.

3. Delay in filing amendment applications is condoned. All amendment applications filed challenging the Notification dated September 25, 1991 are allowed. Counter-affidavit by way of reply to the amendment in the petitions to be filed within three weeks and rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter.

4. All amendments be carried out now in red ink in the original petitions within a week.

5. Hearing of the cases is adjourned to January 28, 1992. Counsel are directed to file a brief summary of their propositions and the authorities relied on by them (merely citations) not exceeding five pages by December 21, 1991. Apportionment of time for hearing of the counsel will be made thereafter. Matters to be listed on January 28, 1992 at the top of the Regular Board.

6. As far as the question of stay granted by us earlier is concerned, we see no reason to pass any order at this stage as the petitions are posted for hearing on January 28, 1992 and in view of the economic criterion not being yet determined and other relevant circumstances, no question of immediate implementation of the notification arises.

Court Master

Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India And Others

Comments