We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
In its June 20 verdict, the high court had ruled that the amendments, passed unanimously by the state’s bicameral legislature in November last year, were “ultra vires” of the Constitution, “bad in law” and “violative of the equality clause”.
The high court had made it clear that it saw “no extenuating circumstance enabling the state to breach” the 50% cap on reservations laid down by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case.
https://www.news18.com/india/sc-refuses-to-stay-patna-hc-order-striking-down-65-reservation-in-bihar-8982373.html