Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1361; (1977)3SCC592; [1978]1SCR1
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. Original Suits Nos. 1 to 6 of 1977, before us have been filed on behalf of the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa against the India under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. There are (sic) before us three writ Petitions, Nos. 67 to 69 of 1977, by three members of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Punjab against Union of India and Shri Charan Singh, the Home Minister in the Government of India and Shri Zail Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab. (sic) six suits and the three Writ Petitions raise certain common quesis(sic) of law and fact. They were, therefore, permitted to be argued (sic). We have already dismissed the suits and petitions after ring them at length and now; propose to state our reasons for doing as stated in our order of 29th April 1977. Before dealing with questions of fact and law I will indicate the nature of the reliefs; (sic) by each plaintiff under Article 131 and the grievance of each (sic)tione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2328; (1977)GLR919; (1977)0GLR90; 1977LabIC1857; (1977)4SCC193; [1978]1SCR423
1. We have heard the learned Attorney-General and Mr. Seervai fully on the various points arising in this appeal. We will deal with the arguments of the learned Counsel later by a considered judgment or judgments. For the present we will only say that since we are informed that the parties to the appeal have arrived at a settlement, the appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of that settlement. Those terms are as follows:On the facts and circumstances on record the present government do not consider that there was any justification for transferring Justice Sheth from Gujarat High Court and propose to transfer him back to that High Court.On this statement being made by the learned Attorney-General, Mr. Seervai Counsel for respondent No. 1 (Justice S.H. Sheth) withdraws the writ petition with leave of the Court.The following Opinions were delivered:Chandrachud, J. This appeal by certificate involves the question as to the constitutionality of a notification issued by the President of In...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC851; (1978)1SCC405; [1978]2SCR272
Krishna Iyer, J.1. What troubles us in this appeal, coming before a Bench of 5 Judges on a reference under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, is not the profusion of controversial facts nor the thorny bunch of lesser law, but the possible confusion about a few constitutional fundamentals., finer administrative normae and jurisdictional limitations bearing upon elections. What are those fundamentals and limitations We will state them, after mentioning, briefly what the writ petition, from which this appeal, by special leave, has arisen, is about.The basics2. Every significant case has an unwritten legend and indelible lesson. This appeal is no exception, whatever its formal result. The message, as we will see at the end of the decision, relates to the pervasive philosophy of democratic elections which Sir Winston Churchill vivified in matchless words :At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC597; (1978)1SCC248; [1978]2SCR621
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The case before us involves questions relating to basic human rights. On such questions I believe that multiplicity of views giving the approach of each member of this Court is not a disadvantage if it clarifies our not infrequently differing approaches. It should enable all interested to appreciate better the significance of our Constitution.2. As I am in general agreement with my learned brethren Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer. I will endeavour to confine my observations to an indication of my own approach on some matters for consideration now before us. This seems to me to be particularly necessary as my learned brother Kailasam, who has also given us the benefit of his separate opinion, has a somewhat different approach. I have had the advantage of going through the opinions of each of my three learned brethren.3. It seems to me that there can be little doubt that the right to travel and to go outside the country, which orders regulating issue, suspension or impounding,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1613; (1978)4SCC118; [1979]1SCR218
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 23rd May, 1967 affirming the decree of the District Judge, Delhi and dismissing the plaintiffs suit for damages against the defendants on the ground that they had violated the copyrighted work of the plaintiff which was a drama called 'Hum Hindustani'.2. The facts have been succinctly stated by the District Judge in his judgment and summarised by the High Court, and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. We would, however, like to give a brief resume of some of the striking facts in the case which may be germane for the purpose of deciding the important issues involved in this appeal. We might mention here that the High Court as also the District Judge negatived the plaintiff's claim and prima facie the appeal appears to be concluded by finding of fact, but it was rightly argued by Mr. Andley appearing for the appellant that the principles of vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1675; AIR1980SC1579; 1978CriLJ1741; 1980CriLJ1099; (1978)4SCC494; (1980)3SCC488; [1979]1SCR392; [1980]2SCR557
Krishna Iyer, J.1.The province of prison justice, the conceptualization of freedom behind bars and the role of judicial power as constitutional sentinel in a prison setting, are of the gravest moment in a world of escalating torture by the minions of State, and in India, where this virgin area of jurisprudence is becoming painfully relevant. Therefore, explicative length has been the result; and so it is that, with all my reverence for and concurrence with my learned brethren on the jurisdictional and jurisprudential basics they have indicated, I have preferred to plough a lonely furrow.The Core-questions.2. One important interrogation lies at the root of these twin writ petitions : Does a prison setting, ipso facto, out-law the rule of law, lock out the judicial process from the jail gates and declare a long holiday for human rights of convicts in confinement, and (to change the mataphor) if there is no total eclipse, what luscent segment is open for judicial justice? Three inter-rela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC478; (1979)1SCC380; [1979]2SCR476
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. On August 1, 1978 the President of India made a reference to this Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution for consideration of the question whether the 'Special Courts Bill, 1978' or any of its provisions, if enacted, would be constitutionally invalid. The full text of the reference is as follows:WHEREAS certain Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the Central Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) have submitted reports which indicate that there is reason to believe that various offences have been committed by persons holding high political and public offices during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency dated the 25th June, 1975, and the period immediately preceding that Proclamation; AND WHEREAS investigations into such offences are being made in accordance with law and are likely to be completed soon; AND WHEREAS suggestions have been made that the persons in respect of whom the investigations ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC621; [1979]118ITR326(SC); (1979)2SCC409; [1979]2SCR641; [1979]44STC42(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.,1. This appeal by certificate raises a question of considerable importance in the field of public law. How far and to what extent is the State bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel It is a doctrine of comparatively recent origin but it is potentially so fruitful and pregnant with such vast possibilities for growth that traditional lawyers are alarmed lest it might upset existing doctrines which are looked upon almost reverentially and which have held the field for a long number of years. The law in regard to promissory estoppel is not yet well settled though it has been the subject of considerable debate in England as well as the United States of America and it has also received consideration in some recent decisions in India and we, therefore, propose to discuss it in some detail with a view to defining its contours and demarcating its parameters. We will first state briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal. This is necessary because it is only where certa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; 19831SCR145;
1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances :Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal.3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by the Courts below would be "special reasons" for awarding the death sentence as required under Section 354(3) of the CrPC 1973.4. Shri H.K. Puri, appearing as Amicus Curiae on behal...
Tag this Judgment!