Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC101; (1991)1CompLJ1(SC); JT1990(3)SC725; 1991LabIC91; (1991)ILLJ395SC; 1991Supp(1)SCC600; [1990]Supp1SCR142; 1991(1)SLJ56(SC)
..... that the power to withhold largess has been asserted by the state in four areas i.e., (1) regulating the right to engage in certain activities; (2) administration of government welfare programme; (3) government employment; and (4) procurement of contracts. it was further adumberated at ..... then the court cannot go further.317. craie's statute law, seventh edition in chapter 5, at page 64 it is stated that where the words of an act are clear, there is no need for applying any of the principles of interpretation which are merely presumptions in ..... expressions used to say what was left unsaid. this is a power which is an important branch of judicial power, the concession of which it taken to the extreme is dangerous, but denial of that power would be ruinous and this is not contrary to the expressed intention of the legislature or the implied purpose of the legislation. it was not as ..... statutory law arbitrarily take away or abridged or abrogated it? in board of trustees, port of bombay v. dilip kumar : (1983)illj1sc : air 1983 sc 109 this court held that the expression 'life' does not merely connote animal existence or a continued ..... a particular enactment is the handy work of a bureaucratic machine produced at the behest of a power lobby controlling the corridors of power in a particular situation. this takes the methodical shape of the 'intention of the people' in the form of legislation. again, very often, the bureaucratic machine is not able to correctly and properly transmute what was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(6)SC273; 1993LabIC129; 1992Supp(3)SCC212; [1992]6SCR321
..... unfortunately, it is not logic and sanity, but emotions and politics which dominate the issue. the loss of exclusive political power wielded through administrative machine, however, cannot be avoided except by perpetuating the status quo.404. the consequences of the status quo are startling and ruinous to the country. one of ..... pressures of expediency, and without due regard to the nature and degree of backwardness, the very evil of discrimination which is sought to be remedied by the constitution would be in danger of being perpetuated in the reverse at the expense of merit and efficiency and contrary to the interests of the truly backward classes of citizens who are the constitutionally intended beneficiaries of ..... naganna gowda commission (1960-61) l.g. havnur commission (1972-75) t. venkataswamy commission (1983-86) justice chinnappa reddy commission (1989-90) kerala justice c.d. nokes committee (1935 ..... communal g.o. on the ground that the g.o. was sought or purported to be regulated in such a manner as to infringe the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 15(1) and 29(2). similarly one srinivasan who had applied for admission into the government engineering college at ..... and scheduled tribes order (amendment) act, 1976.137. thirdly, the commission cannot be said to have ignored this factual position and found fault with for relying on 1931 census. in fact, this position is made clear by the commission itself in chapter xii of its report, the relevant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2696; [1992(65)FLR1]; JT1992(3)SC446; (1992)IILLJ294SC; 1992(1)SCALE1248; (1992)3SCC336
S.C. Agarwal, J. 1. These appeals and writ petitions have been placed before us on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court for the reason that they raise the question involving the constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The validity of the said provision is assailed on the ground that it is violative of thF.J.R. e right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is not saved by Clause (6) of Article 19. 2. Since the only question required to be considered by us is with regard to the validity of Section 25-N of the Act and it can be decided on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Act without going into the facts of each case, we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts. 3. Section 25-N forms part of Chapter V-B which bears the heading 'Special provisions relating to lay-off, retrenchment and closure in certain establishments'. The said Chapter consists of Sections 25-K to 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lee v. Weisman - 505 U.S. 577 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus LEE ET AL. v. WEISMAN, PERSONALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF WEISMAN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 90-1014. Argued November 6, 1991-Decided June 24, 1992 Principals of public middle and high schools in Providence, Rhode Island, are permitted to invite members of the clergy to give invocations and benedictions at their schools' graduation ceremonies. Petitioner Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to offer such prayers at the graduation ceremony for Deborah Weisman's class, gave the rabbi a pamphlet containing guidelines for the composition of public prayers at civic ceremonies, and advised him that the prayers should be nonsectarian. Shortly before the ceremony, the District Court denied the motion of respondent Weisman, Deborah's father, for a temporary restraining order to prohibit school officials from including the prayers in the ceremony. Deborah and her fam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2219; JT1992(5)SC1; 1992(2)SCALE257; (1992)4SCC506; [1992]Supp1SCR108
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The person entitled to seek judicial review and the stage at which it is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in accordance with the law declared in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountably v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 -is the question for decision in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the remedy of judicial review is available to the concerned Judge against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is 'guilty' of misbehavior only prior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker in accordance with Section 4(2) of the Act or latest till it is laid before the Parliament as required by Section 4(3) of the Act, but not thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that a copy of the report should be furnished to the concerned Judge before it is submitted to the Speaker, to preser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC892; 1993CriLJ600; 1992(3)Crimes199(SC); JT1992(5)SC213; 1992(2)SCALE338; (1992)4SCC305; [1992]Supp1SCR226
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. We gave our conclusions in our earlier Order dated 27th August 1991 reserving the reasons to be given later. Accordingly, we render our reasons in the present judgment.2. We feel that a prefatory note, though not the detailed facts of the case, is necessary for disposal of these appeals and writ petition. The facts culled out from various documents placed before this Court are as follows:3. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India approved in August 1980 a proposal forwarded by Army Headquarters (HQ) recommending, inter-alia, the introduction of 155 mm calibre medium gun both towed and self-propelled to meet its defence operational requirements. The choice for obtaining the said gun system/guns was short listed in December, 1982 to (1) M/s. Sofma of France (2) M/s. A.B. Before of Sweden (briefly called 'Before') (3) M/s. International Military Services of U.K. and (4) M/s. Voest Alpine of Austria. In November 1985, there was a further short listing of Sofm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC477; [1992]Supp2SCR454; 1992DGLS(soft)768:1992Supp(3)SCC217
ORDER1. Judgment of The Chief Justice, M.N. Venkatachallah, A.M. Ahmadi and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. Delivered by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.Forty and three years ago was founded this republic with the fourfold objective of securing to its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Statesmen of the highest order the like of which this country has not seen since - belonging to the fields of law, politics and public life came together to fashion the instrument of change - the Constitution of India. They did not rest content with evolving the framework of the State; they also pointed out the goal-and the methodology for reaching that goal. In the preamble, they spelt out the goal and in parts III and IV, they elaborated the methodology to be followed for reaching that goal.2. The Constituent Assembly, though elected on the basis of a limited franchise, was yet representative of all sections of society. Above all, it was composed of men of vision, conscious of the his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1126; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)390; 1993CriLJ1029; 1992(3)Crimes1104(SC); JT1992(Suppl1)SC588; 1992(3)SCALE339; 1995Supp(4)SCC469; [1992]Supp3SCR284
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Appa Balu Ingale and four others were tried for the offences under Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (The Act). The trial court convicted all of them under Section 4 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further five days. Appa Balu Ingale was further convicted under Section 7 of the Act but no separate sentence was awarded to him for the said offence. The Additional Sessions Judge Belgaum, on appeal, upheld the conviction and sentence of Appa Balu Ingale, Shankar Babaji Patil and Rajaram Rama Sankpal. The learned Judge, however, allowed the appeal of the other two convicts and acquitted them. Against the judgment of the Appellate Court Appa Balu Ingale and two others went in revision before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and acquitted all of them. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1267
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two Writ Petitions call in question the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act of 1971 inter alia, on the ground that it violates the basic structure and essential features of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, outside the scope and ambit of constituent powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution as provided under Article 368 of the Constitution. In addition, certain directions or suitable orders are sought for declaring that the petitioners continue to be the Rulers or the 'Successor Rulers', as the case may be and directing the respondent-Union of India to continue to recognise their personal rights, amenities and privileges as Rulers of their erstwhile States and also continue to pay privy purse to them in addition to their arrears of amounts. For facilitating a proper understanding of the controversy that has led to the filing of these two writ petitions and the Interlocutory Applications 1 to 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2178; JT1993(1)SC474; 1992(2)SCALE703; (1993)1SCC645; [1993]1SCR594
ORDER1. We have had the benefit of going through the two judgments of our learned Brothers B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S. Mohan, JJ. We are in agreement with the judgment of Brother B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. except to the extent indicated below.2. The question which arose in the case of Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka: : [1992]3SCR658 , as also in the present cases before us, is whether a citizen has a Fundamental Right to education for a medical, engineering or other professional degree. The question whether the right to primary education, as mentioned in Article 45 of the Constitution of India, is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 did not arise in Mohini Jain's case and no finding or observation on that question was called for. It was contended before us that since a positive finding on that question was recorded in Mohini Join's case it becomes necessary to consider its correctness on merits. We do not think so.3. Learned arguments were addressed in support of and against the afores...
Tag this Judgment!