Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.11 OF1990Dr. Subramanian Swamy Petitioner Vs. Arun Shourie Respondent WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.12 OF1990JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. In the issue of Indian Express of August 13, 1990, an editorial was published bearing the caption If shame had survived. The editorial reads as under:If shame had survived The legal opinion that the former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Y. V. Chandrachud, has given on the Kuldip Singh Commissions report is a stunning indictment. Succinct, understated to the point of being deferential, scrupulously adhering to facts and law, eschewing completely the slightest attribution of any motive to the Commission, the opinion is a model of rectitude. Nothing in the report survives it evidence that it was agreed would not be pressed relied on as a fulcrum; evidence of the one witness who was the hub of the decisions wholly disregarded; indictments framed on probable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1993Ori180; 75(1993)CLT352
Hansaria, C.J.1. The mighty says to the meek that you cannot command me to act; I shall act if f like, I shall not act if I choose not to act. The meek says that I possess the strength of law to give you the command; the law, which is no respector of person and which does not allow anybody to rise so high as to be above it. This could be the scenario if what has been submitted by Shri Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the State, were to be accepted by us fully.2. In the background of the present case, the point involved may be pithily put, on our going whole hog with Shri Patnaik, as to whether the Presiding Officer of a small munsifi in a small hamlet of Orissa (say, Nowrangpur in the district of Koraput) can call upon the all powerful Prime Minister of India to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, as visualised by Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') (hereinafter referred to as the 'judicial inquiry'), if the small Munsiff be of the view that any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ693
ORDERD.M. Dharamadhikari, J.1. The petitioner is a prominent leader of the Congress party in India. He was twice Chief Minister of the State of Madhya Pradesh. For some period, he was Governor of the State of Punjab. He is presently a cabinet minister in the Central Cabinet.2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the notification published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 29-3-1990, whereby the scope of enquiry pending before Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, Judge of the Madras High Court has been enlarged by adding three more terms of reference for enquiry by him.3. A few important events will have to be kept in mind while deciding the present controversy. Shri Kailash Joshi, who was the leader of the opposition in Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 18-10-1987 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, being Misc. Petition No. 3909 of 1987, seeking appropriate directions from the Court in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT292; 1993(25)DRJ104
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Two Officers of the Indian Po,lice Service viz, Chander Prakash and Sewa Dass have filed these two writ petitions claiming similar reliefs viz., that the Notification dated 23rd February, 1987 constituting a Committee of Mr. Justice Dalip K.Kapur (retd.)and Km. Kusum Lata Mital be quashed and, further no action be taken by the respondents on any report or observations made by any of the members of the said Committee.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that Chander Prakash joined the Indian Police Service, and was allotted the Union Territory's cadre, in the year 1971 while Sewa Dass was appointed to this service in 1973. On 31st October, 1984 Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India was assassinated by her security guards. Both the petitioners were, at that time, posted at Delhi. Chander Prakash was Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Delhi and Sewa Dass was serving as Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Delhi.(3) The aftermath of the dastardly act of murd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1983AP69
Chennakesav Reddy, J.1. Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, now know to the public as the 'King of Land Grabbers' is the petitioner in this writ petition. He disclosed to be public disturbing facts. He involved in the alleged acts of land grabbing some senior civilians and veteran political grandsires provoking a probe by a high power commission. He now seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to interdict the proceeding of the commission of Inquiry, Land Grabbing, by the issue of 'writ mainly on the ground that the procedure followed by the commission is contrary to the provisions of the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder.2. By G.O. Ms. No. 146, General Administration (General-B) Department, dated 17th March, 1982 the Government of Andhra pradesh appointed a commission of Inquiry under the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (central Act 60 of 1952) consisting of a single member viz., sri susheel Kumar, I.A.S. commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 51(1993)DLT624
ORDEROn June 1. 1993, the Commission passed a short Order stating that a detailed reasoned Order will follow. The Commission records the following detailed reasoned Order :Backdrop 1.1 Shri Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, was assassinated on 21st May, 1991 around 10-20 p.m. at the Congress (I) election meeting venue at Sriperambudur. The police investigation of the bomb blast commenced with the registration of the case as Crime No. 329/91 under Sections 302, 307 and 326 with the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, at Sriperambudur Police Station, Anna West District, Tamil Nadu at 0115 hours on 22.5,1991. Immediately on registration, the investigation was taken over by the Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras the same day vide Government of Tamil Nadu Notification No. SE-2860/91 dated 22nd May, 1991. The consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was accorded to the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC68; (1977)4SCC608; [1978]2SCR1
Beg, C.J.1. 'India, that is Bharat, shall be union of States'. The very first mandate of the first article of our Constitution to which we owe allegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication, according to the plaintiff in the original suit now before us under Article 121 of the Constitution of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the Union Government upon the domain of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has, therefore, sued for a declaration that a notification dated 23-5-1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Central Notification') constituting a Commission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is illegal and ultra-vires. This declaration is sought on one of two alternative grounds : firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, does not 'authorise the Central Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in regard to matters falling excl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4417,2006(1)JKJ165
ORDERPermod Kohli, J.1. Legality and propriety of Inquiry Report of One Man Commission dated 15-12-2002, Notification SRO 106 dated 15-3-2003 appointing One Man Corn-mission of Inquiry and all consequential actions initiated by the State on the basis of the Report of Commission of Inquiry have been called in question by the petitioner, who is an IPS Officer of the State.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition as are available in the pleadings of the parties are--Petitioner was posted as Superintendent of Police, Anantnag from August, 1998 to 4th April, 2000. On 25th March, 2000 Adjutant 7th Bn, Rashtriya Rifles (Pb) submitted a written report to Police Station, Achhabal for registering an FIR disclosing that an Army Unit carried out specific cordon and search operation in Forest of Panchalthari from 5.15 hours to 1500 hours on 25th March, 2000. An encounter took place between terrorists and troops of the Unit. In the operation five terrorists were killed. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 38(1989)DLT270
S.B. Wad, J. (1) In this writ petition the petitioners have sought a mandamus to Delhi Administration to fill up the second vacancy (in the Committee of Inquiry) in accordance with Government of India notification No. F.10(9)/98, dated February 22, 1988. They have also sought direction to the Committee of Inquiry to change the venue of the proceedings to a place outside Delhi. In the stay application a blanket stay of further proceedings before the Committee of Inquiry (till the final disposal of the writ petition) is sought. We have heard this writ petition for five days. On 27th April 1989 when hri K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate for the petitioners concluded his arguments by way of reply to the arguments on behalf of the respondents, he wanted to move an application for amending the writ petition. Since the petition had come at a very late stage and since we had heard the counsel for the petitioners at length, we refused the permission. At the time of the arguments, counsel for the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996AP62
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. These two Writ Petitions, W. P. No. 10587 1995 (the first Writ Petition) and W.P. 11256 1995 (the second Writ Petition), arise out of the same facts and raise the same questions of law, so they are heard together and arc being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner in the first Writ Petition is the former Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner in the second Writ Petition is the former Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners pray for an appro-pirate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to G.O.Ms. No. 11, General Administration (I & PR) Department, dated January 13, 1995 appointing the 4th respondent as Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') and G.O.Ms. No. 15, General Administration (I PR) Department, dated January 17, 1995, containing the terms of reference, as arbitrary, un...
Tag this Judgment!