Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC312
Binod Kumar Roy and M.P. Singh, JJ.1. Whether the respondent who is a member of Higher Judicial Service of our State, for non-declaration of results of Intermediate Examination, 1997 of his own son could have initiated suo motu judicial proceedings in his own Court, proceeded to pass orders for production of Answer Books of his son and held guilty the Educational Authorities of the State after holding an Enquiry of committal of alleged offences under Indian Penal Code, Section 340 Cr PC and even guilty of committal of Contempt of Court Act and decided to make reference thereunder And whether this Court will be justified in interfering with his acts and orders/directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? are the core questions which have cropped up for adjudication in this writ proceedings.The Prayers :2. The petitioners - the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education (Secondary)-cum-Chairman, U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2120; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)157; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)762; 1997(1)BLJR263; 1998CriLJ2930; 1998(3)SCALE53; (1998)4SCC626; [1998]2SCR870
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. On 26th July, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. The support of 14 members was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On 28th July, 1993, the no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 against. Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (the JMM), and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Janata Dal, Ajit Singh group (the J.D., A.S.), voted against the no-confidence motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the J.D., A.S., abstained from voting thereon.2. It is the respondents, case that the above named members agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which P.V. Narasimha Rao, M.P. and Prime Minist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3450; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)331; 2003(3)ALT41(SC); 2003(2)AWC1534(SC); 2003(2)BLJR1420; 2003(2)CTC760; I(2003)DMC627SC; [2004(1)JCR98(SC)]; JT2003(3)SC399; 2003(2)KLT243
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Whether a party to a divorce proceeding can be compelled to amedical examination is the core question involved in this appeal. Thisquestion arises out of a judgment dated 17.11.1999 passed by the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1414/99 dismissing an application filed by the appellant herein questioningan order of the Addl. District & Session Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh CampSangaria dated 8.10.1999 directing to submit herself to medical examinationon the question as to whether she is of unsound mind.2. The parties herein were married on 26.6.1991 according to the Hindurites. On or about 3.6.1995, the respondent filed an application for divorceagainst the appellant under Section 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii) of the HinduMarriage Act, 1955. He filed an application seeking directions for medicalexamination of the appellant on 5th May, 1999. The appellant objectedthereto inter alia on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3566; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)504; 2004(2)BLJR1378; 98(2004)CLT491(SC); 2004CriLJ2881; 112(2004)DLT457(SC); 2004(77)DRJ390; RLW2004(3)SC402; 2004(6)SCALE15; (2004)5SCC518;
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by way of public interest litigation, by Sakshi, which is an organisation to provide legal, medical, residential, psychological or any other help, assistance or charitable support for women, in particular those who are victims of any kind of sexual abuse and/or harassment, violence or any kind of atrocity or violation and is a violence intervention center. The respondents arrayed in the writ petition are (1) Union of India; (2) Ministry of Law and Justice; and (3) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. The main reliefs claimed in the writ petition arc as under :A) Issue a writ in the nature of a declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring inter alia that 'sexual intercourse' as contained in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code shall include all forms of penetration such as penile/vaginal penetration, penile/oral penetration, penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC465; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)220; JT1997(9)SC431; 1997(7)SCALE741; (1998)2SCC109; [1997]Supp5SCR469
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. These writ petitions and appeals raise common questions relating to the validity of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (as amended) enacted by Parliament (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') and the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 enacted by the State Legislature of Assam (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act').2. The Central Act was enacted in 1958 to enable certain special powers to be conferred upon the members of the armed forces in the disturbed areas in the State of Assam and the Union Territory of Manipur. By Act 7 of 1972 and Act 69 of 1985 the Central Act was amended and it extends to the whole of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. The expression 'disturbed area' has been defined in Section 2(b) to mean an area which is for the time being declared by notification under Section 3 to be a disturbed area. Section 3 makes provision for issuance of a notification declaring the whole or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2011SC1290
1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Attorney General for India for the Union of India Mr. Vahanvati, Mr. T. R. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel, whom we had appointed as amicus curiae, Mr. Pallav Sisodia, learned senior counsel for the Dean, KEM Hospital, Mumbai, and Mr. Chinmay Khaldkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra. 2. Euthanasia is one of the most perplexing issues which the courts and legislatures all over the world are facing today. This Court, in this case, is facing the same issue, and we feel like a ship in an uncharted sea, seeking some guidance by the light thrown by the legislations and judicial pronouncements of foreign countries, as well as the submissions of learned counsels before us. The case before us is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, and has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug by one Ms. Pinki Virani of Mumbai, claiming to be a next friend. 3. It is st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR356
ORDERBopanna, J.Issue rule in W.P.No. 8892 of 1987.1. These two Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order since certain common questions arise for consideration in these petitions under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CITB Act'), the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA' Act), the Allotment of Sites Rules framed under the CITB Act and the Allotment of Sites Rules, 1982 framed under the B.D.A. Act.2. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions purchased certain sites which had been allotted to them earlier by the City Improvement Trust Board Bangalore Development Authority and in terms of the orders of allotment and the stipulations imposed in the agreements that they had entered into with the respective authority they have put up residential houses in those sites and have been residing either as owners of those premises in question or rented out tenants.3. In W.P.No. 8892/87 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. :1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith.2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.3. It is further stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC684; AIR1984SC991; (1984)86BOMLR365; 1984CriLJ613; 1984CriLJ819; 1984(1)Crimes568(SC); 1984(1)Crimes926(SC); 1984(1)SCALE198; 1984(1)SCALE583; (1984)2SCC183; (1984
D.A. Desai, J.1. Respondent Abdul Rehman Antulay (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra from 1980 till he submitted his resignation on January 12, 1982, which became effective from January 20, 1982. He thus ceased to hold the office of the Chief Minister from January 20, 1982 but continues to be a sitting member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly till today.2. As the contentions canvassed before this Court are mainly questions of law, facts at this stage having a peripheral relevance in the course of discussion, it is unnecessary to set out the prosecution case as disclosed in the complaint filed by complainant Ramdas Shrinivas, Nayak (complainant for short) in detail save and except few a pertinent and relevant allegations. In the process the brief/history of the litigation may also be traced.3. The complainant moved the Governor of Maharashtra by his application dated September 1, 1981 requesting him to grant sanction to prose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(6)ALD582; 2005(6)ALT364
Bilal Nazki, A.C.J. for himself and on behalf of Hon'ble Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. I have the privilege of going through the elaborate opinions framed by my brother Judges Mr. Justice Goda Raghuram and Mr. Justice V.V.S. Rao. By and large, I am in agreement with them, but there are some areas, where I could not pursue myself to go along with the opinion of my brothers, though the fate of the cases would be the same and the writ petitions would have to be allowed. Facts have been mentioned in detail by my learned brothers in then judgments, but in order to frame my opinion, certain facts would have to be repeated.2. Andhra Pradesh Reservation of seats in the Educational Institutions and of appointments/posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Ordinance, 2005 (Ordinance No. 13 of 2005, dated 20-06-2005), is under challenge in these writ petitions. A battery of lawyers assisted us in these writ petitions. There are writ petitioners, respondents and the intervenes....
Tag this Judgment!