Mr.SubodhMarkandeya

AVS Narasimha Rao vs.State of AP

(1969) 1 SCC 839 (CB)

Defended the A.P. Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1956. Supreme Court, however, struck down section 3 of the AP PE (RR) Act.[Constitution Bench]

Director of Industries etc. vs. VVReddy

(1973) 1 SCC 99

Defended the “Mulki Rules”. Supreme Court accepted the contention that on striking down the AP PE (RR)Act,1956 Mulki Rules revived. [CB]

All Saints High School vs. Govt. of AP

(1980) 2 SCC 478

Supreme Court accepted the contention that even the “minority” institution cannot be allowed en masse termination of teachers which inevitably results in lowering standards of excellence

Minerva Mills vs UOI

(1980) 3 SCC 625

Supreme Court held that judicial review extended to examination of the constitutional amendments when it alters the “basic structure” of the Constitution[CB]

Som Prakash Rekhi vs. UOI

(1981) 1 SCC 722

Supreme Court held that in spite of being only Company, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was the “State” within the meaning of Article 12

Lakshman vs. State of MP

(1983) 3 SCC 275

Supreme Court struck down levy of higher grazing charges on migratory cattle of nomadic tribesmen from Gujarat and Rajasthan

T. Venkat Reddy vs. State of AP

(1985)3 SCC 198

Challenging constitutional validity of the AP Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance No I of 1983.Supreme Court upheld validity but in second round held that out of total VOs those who were qualified must be employed before recruiting new incumbents] [CB]

B. Prabhakara Rao vs. State of AP

(1985) Suppl SCC 432

Supreme Court in second round of litigation directed reinstatement of 35,000 odd public servants whose age of superannuation was reduced from 58 years to 55 years.

P. Sambhamurthy vs. State of AP

(1987) 1 SCC 663

Supreme Court accepted the contention that clause (5)including proviso thereto of Article 371-D of the Constitution was ultra vires][CB].

Pawan Kumar Jain vs.Union of India

Perheps the first case challenging the constitutional validity of telephone tapping in the Supreme Court of India

“Al Khawateen” vs. UOI

Challenging constitutional validity of the Muslim Women’s Right to Maintnance Act, 1986]

DK Jain vs. State of Haryana

(1995) Suppl. SCC 349

Supreme Court accepted the contention excessive concession in favour of ex-servicemen is unconstitutional and legal fiction cannot be stretched to beyond reasonable limits.

Preeti Srivastav vs. State of MP

(1997) 7 SCC 120

[CB] Supreme Court accepted the contention excessive reservation and diluting standards for admission of SC\ST candidates is unconstitutional.

Dr. Chandra Prakash vs. State of UP

(2002) 2 SCC 913

[CB] Supreme Court accepted the argument that two-judge Bench is bound to follow a decision of a three judge Bench.

Anil Baluni vs. SS Negi

(2005) 5 SCC 793

Supreme Court accepted the argument that the court had limited power to examine the legality of rejection of nomination paper in an election case and upon such examination, court found rejection of nomination paper illegal and set aside the election.

Board of Basic Education vs. Rajendra Kumar

(2009) 17 SCC 452

Supreme Court accepted my contention that court cannot direct consideration of candidate who is not qualified under the statutory rules and set aside High Court’s judgment.