{"id":349778,"date":"2025-06-05T14:30:28","date_gmt":"2025-06-05T09:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=349778"},"modified":"2025-06-07T09:38:11","modified_gmt":"2025-06-07T04:08:11","slug":"jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"Jharkhand HC declares S. 22-A of Registration Act introduced by 1991 Bihar Amendment Act, as unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Jharkhand High Court:<\/span> In a Civil Writ Petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908<\/a>, as introduced by the State of Bihar vide the Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991, which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand and the consequential notification issued thereunder, the Division Bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J., and Rajesh Shankar, J. relying upon the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on similar issue in State of Rajasthan<\/span> v. Basant Nahata<\/span>, (2005) 12 SCC 77<\/a>, declared the said amendment as unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908<\/a> as applicable to the State of Jharkhand stated:<\/p>\n

\u201c22-A. Registration of documents which is against the public policy.- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is against the public policy.<\/p>\n

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register any document to which the notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Basant Nahata (supra)<\/span>, wherein the Court had clarified the ambiguous nature of \u201cpublic policy<\/span>\u201d and emphasized the impossibility of precisely defining it at any given time, thereby leaving the Executive to address its undefined aspects. The Supreme Court had firmly established that the power to interpret this concept rests solely with judiciary, and even then, its power is limited.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the State of Rajasthan\u2019s argument that as a higher authority, it would not misuse its delegated power under Section 22-A of the Registration Act<\/a>. The Supreme Court thus declared Section 22-A ultra vires Articles 14<\/a> and 246<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed the State of Rajasthan\u2019s contention that, as a policy decision, it should be immune from judicial intervention. The Supreme Court had reiterated that legislative policies must adhere to constitutional mandates and are, in any case, subject to judicial review.<\/p>\n

Therefore, placing reliance on the reasons in Basant Nahata (supra)<\/span>, the High Court in the instant case noted that it is bound by the Supreme Court\u2019s decision. It was pointed out that the impugned Section in the instant case is similar to the Section struck down by the Supreme Court. The Court thus held 22-A of the Registration Act, as adopted by the state of Jharkhand, and the consequential notification under it, as unconstitutional. The Court further set aside all orders passed by Sub Registrars or the officials of the Registration Department pursuant to the notification 26-08-2015.<\/p>\n

[Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 2209<\/a>, decided on 01-05-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the petitioner:<\/span> R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Indrajit Sinha, Puja Agarwal, Rohitashya Roy, Vibhor Mayank, Nagmani Tiwari, Govind Ray Karan, Amit Kumar Verma, Ankit Vishal, Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Yashvardhan, Kirtivardhan, Ritesh Singh, Aditya Aman, Pratayksha Bhaskar, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the respondent:<\/span> Government Advocate Mrinal Kanti Roy, Government Advocate Manoj Kumar, Government Advocate Mithilesh Singh, Government Advocate Jayant Franklin Toppo, A.C. to A.A.G. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to A.G. Piyush Chitresh, P.A.S. Pati, Anil Kumar, Arpit Kumar, A.C. to G.A. Aman Shekhar, A.C. to G.A. Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in a case where a similar amendment of by State of Rajasthan was held ultra vires Article 14 and Article 246 of the Constitution due to the doctrine of public policy being vague and uncertain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":333852,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[83055,7292,83056,7601,8731,5791,31196,29644,2829],"class_list":["post-349778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-22-a-of-the-registration-act-1908","tag-article-14","tag-article-246","tag-constitution-of-india","tag-constitutional-validity","tag-jharkhand-high-court","tag-public-policy","tag-ultra-vires","tag-unconstitutional"],"yoast_head":"\nJhar HC: S. 22-A of Registration Act unconstitutional | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Jharkhand HC holds Section 22-A of the Registration Act and its consequential notification ultra vires Article 14 and 246 of the Constitution.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jharkhand HC declares S. 22-A of Registration Act introduced by 1991 Bihar Amendment Act, as unconstitutional\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Jharkhand HC holds 22-A of the Registration Act and its consequential notification ultra vires Article 14 and 246 of the Constitution.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-05T09:00:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-07T04:08:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Jharkhand HC declares S. 22-A of Registration Act introduced by 1991 Bihar Amendment Act, as unconstitutional\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/\",\"name\":\"Jhar HC: S. 22-A of Registration Act unconstitutional | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-05T09:00:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-07T04:08:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Jharkhand HC holds Section 22-A of the Registration Act and its consequential notification ultra vires Article 14 and 246 of the Constitution.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Jharkhand High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jharkhand HC declares S. 22-A of Registration Act introduced by 1991 Bihar Amendment Act, as unconstitutional\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jhar HC: S. 22-A of Registration Act unconstitutional | SCC Times","description":"Jharkhand HC holds Section 22-A of the Registration Act and its consequential notification ultra vires Article 14 and 246 of the Constitution.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jharkhand HC declares S. 22-A of Registration Act introduced by 1991 Bihar Amendment Act, as unconstitutional","og_description":"Jharkhand HC holds 22-A of the Registration Act and its consequential notification ultra vires Article 14 and 246 of the Constitution.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-05T09:00:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-07T04:08:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Jharkhand HC declares S. 22-A of Registration Act introduced by 1991 Bihar Amendment Act, as unconstitutional","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/","name":"Jhar HC: S. 22-A of Registration Act unconstitutional | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-05T09:00:28+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-07T04:08:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Jharkhand HC holds Section 22-A of the Registration Act and its consequential notification ultra vires Article 14 and 246 of the Constitution.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Jharkhand High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/05\/jharkhand-hc-holds-22-a-of-the-registration-act-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jharkhand HC declares S. 22-A of Registration Act introduced by 1991 Bihar Amendment Act, as unconstitutional"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":228264,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/04\/14\/article-131-manufacturing-a-dispute-where-none-exists\/","url_meta":{"origin":349778,"position":0},"title":"Article 131: Manufacturing a \u2018Dispute\u2019 Where None Exists","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ivan & Vivek Mathur*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/SupremeCourt-of-india-e1474695737123.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/SupremeCourt-of-india-e1474695737123.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/SupremeCourt-of-india-e1474695737123.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/SupremeCourt-of-india-e1474695737123.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/SupremeCourt-of-india-e1474695737123.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":369122,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/08\/sc-extra-requirement-stamp-duty-exemption-cooperative-societies-jharkhand\/","url_meta":{"origin":349778,"position":1},"title":"SC sets aside ‘Superfluous’ Requirement of Assistant Registrar’s recommendation for Stamp Duty Exemption; Upholds Ease of Transactions for Cooperative Societies","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court observed that administrative procedures should avoid complexity, redundant requirements, and unnecessary burdens, which waste time, expense, and disturb peace of mind.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"extra requirement for stamp duty exemption","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/extra-requirement-for-stamp-duty-exemption.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/extra-requirement-for-stamp-duty-exemption.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/extra-requirement-for-stamp-duty-exemption.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/extra-requirement-for-stamp-duty-exemption.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276523,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/03\/patna-high-court-sections-2-3-4-and-5-of-bihar-municipal-amendment-act-2021-run-contrary-to-bihar-municipal-act-2007-and-74th-constitutional-amendment-act-1992-held-unconstitutional\/","url_meta":{"origin":349778,"position":2},"title":"Patna High Court | Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2021 run contrary to Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992; held unconstitutional","author":"Editor","date":"November 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Patna High Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Karol, C.J. and S. Kumar, J. declared Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2021 as unconstitutional to the effect of amendments carried out in Sections 36, 37, 38 and 41 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, by virtue of amending Sections 2,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Patna High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/patna_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283082,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/11\/unhandicapping-the-federal-court-of-india-in-federal-disputes-critique-of-the-decision-in-state-of-m-p-v-union-of-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":349778,"position":3},"title":"(Un)Handicapping the Federal Court of India in Federal Disputes: Critique of the decision in State of M.P. v. Union of India","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Vinayak Goel\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-372.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":253593,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/03\/born-in-a-district-of-bihar-thats-now-a-part-of-jharkhand-heres-where-you-can-claim-reservation\/","url_meta":{"origin":349778,"position":4},"title":"Born in a district of Bihar that’s now a part of Jharkhand? Here’s where you can claim reservation","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that such persons whose place of origin\/domicile on or before the appointed day i.e. 15th November, 2000 was of the State of Bihar now falling within the districts\/regions which form a successor State, i.e., State of Jharkhand\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":46361,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/09\/constitutional-validity-of-sections-5d-and-9b-of-maharashtra-animal-preservation-act-struck-down\/","url_meta":{"origin":349778,"position":5},"title":"Constitutional validity of Sections 5D and 9B of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, struck down","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 9, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: Deciding a petition challenging various provisions of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act 1976 as amended by Maharashtra\u00a0 Preservation Act 1995, a bench consisting A.S. Oka and S.C. Gupte, J.J., struck down two amendments of\u00a0 Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act 1976 and upheld the constitutional validity of rest of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349778","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=349778"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349778\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/333852"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=349778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=349778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=349778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}