Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(3)SC198; (1992)IILLJ53bSC; 1991(2)SCALE150; (1991)3SCC655; [1991]3SCR189a
Ray, J.; [Concurring]1. I have had the advantage of deciphering the two draft judgments prepared by my learned brothers Shetty and Verma, JJ. I agree with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother Shetty, J. Yet considering the great importance of the questions involved in this matter, I deem it just and proper to consider the same and to express my own views.2. Three very important questions fall for decision in this case. First of all whether a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Judge of a High Court is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act interprets a public servant as meaning a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. Act 45 of 1860. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code states that a public servant denotes a person falling under any of the description mentioned therein:Third-Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)442; 1993(41)BLJR1276; 1993(II)Crimes1186(SC); JT1993(4)SC466; 1993(3)SCALE303; (1993)4SCC97; [1993]Supp1SCR443
S. Mohan, J.1. Impelled by a desire to espouse a public cause, so the petitioner claims, this Writ Petition has come to be preferred. The cause relates to the motion of impeachment of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, a Judge of this Court.2. Notice was given by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha for presenting an address to the President for removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami. On March 12, 1991 the motion was admitted. The Committee was constituted in terms of Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. After the Committee rendered its finding the motion was to be taken up by the Members of Parliament for consideration on 10th May, 1993.3. The petitioner alleges that he served on the Speaker of the Lok Sabha a nine page communication for circulation to the Members of the Parliament. On 8th May, 1993 the Congress (I) publicly announced the Members of Parliament to cast 'a conscience vote' while the AIADMK party had announced that it would abstain from voting. The petitioner coming to know about...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)404; AIR1996SC2481; 1996CriLJ3274; JT1996(6)SC529; 1996(5)SCALE233; (1996)5SCC216; [1996]Supp3SCR677
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J. 1. In a clash of competing interests in constitutional contours, this case calls to strike a balance between the freedom of speech and expression, a salutary right in a liberal democratic society and paramount countervailing duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The petitioner had initiated public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution to direct Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao, the President of India National Congress and the former Prime Minister of the country to pay a sum of Rs. 8.29 Lakhs and odd said to be due to the Union of India for use of Indian Air Force aircraft or helicopters from October 1, 1993 to November 30, 1993. When Writ Petition No. 432/95 was posted for hearing on July 17, 1995 before the learned Chief Justice of India and brother Justice S.C. Sen the Solicitor General for India, Shri Dipankar P. Gupta was sent for and the Court directed him to have the averments verified to be correct and directed the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC339; 1995(5)SCALE142; (1995)5SCC457; [1995]Supp3SCR319; (1995)3UPLBEC1723
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. The petitioner, a practising advocate, has initiated the public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining permanently the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa [BCMG], Bombay Bar Association [BBA] and the Advocates' Association of Western India [AAWI], respondents 2 to 4 respectively, coercing Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee [the 1st respondent], Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, to resign from the office as Judge. He also sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation etc. [respondents 8 to 10] into the allegations made against the 1st respondent and if the same are found true, to direct the 5th respondent, Speaker Lok Sabha to initiate action for his removal under Article 124(4) and (5) read with Article 218 of the Constitution of India and Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 [for short, 'the Act']. This Court on March 24, 1995 issued notice to respondents 2 to 4 only and rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal No 1081 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl)No 156 of 2019) Sanjeev Kumar Gupta VERSUS The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr ..Appellant ..Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a claim of juvenility in a decision of its Single Judge dated 14 November 2018. The judgment is challenged in this appeal1 by the complainant. 2 On 28 October 2015, a First Information Report was lodged by the appellant at PS Ekka in the district of Firozabad in Uttar Pradesh which was registered as Case Crime 252 of 2016 under Section 364 A of the Penal Code. The allegation is that the appellant received a call on his cell phone from an unknown number and the caller wished to speak to his son, claiming to be his teacher. The appellants 1 Criminal Revision 2952 of 2017 2 son who was about thirteen years old was studying in the eighth standard in a public school in Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave Granted. 2. This appeal by grant of special leave, is directed against judgment dated August 9, 2010, rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 529 of 2003, by which the conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Summary Case No. 2785 of 1998 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and confirmed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Ahmedabad is maintained but the sentence imposed upon the appellants for commission of said offence is set aside and matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate for passing appropriate order with regard to sentence and compensation, if any under Section 357 of Cr. P.C. within three months, after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The respondent No.1 herein is original complainant. He was doing business in the name of Navkar Steel Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant is known to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6177 OF2004Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Appellant Versus Dilbahar Singh Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2162 OF2004CIVIL APPEAL NO.2901 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL NO.6954 OF2005CIVIL APPEAL NO.7520 OF2005CIVIL APPEAL NO.5212 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL NO.2859 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL NO.3313 OF2007CIVIL APPEAL NO.1224 OF2006SLP (C) NO.34303 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7491 OF2004SLP (C) No.11931 of 2011 SLP (C) No.22248 OF2007CIVIL APPEAL NO.7066 OF2005JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. This group of eleven appeals and three special leave petitions has been referred to the 5-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict into the two 3-Judge Bench decisions one, Rukmini [1]. and the other, Ram Dass[2].. Ram Dass2 has followed Moti Ram[3].. At the time of hearing of Civil Appeal No.6177 of 2004, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the 2-Judge Bench, while dealing with the meaning, ambit and scope of the words legality...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1978)3SCC339; [1978]3SCR162
ORDER1. The matter before us arises out of a publication in the Indian Express newspapers dated 13th December, 1977. Some people perhaps believe that attempts to hold trials of everything and everybody by publications in newspapers must include those directed against the highest Court of Justice in this country and its pronouncements. If this is done in a reasonable manner, which pre-supposes accuracy of information about a matter on which any criticism is offered, and arguments are directed fairly against any reasoning adopted, I would, speaking for myself, be the last person to consider it objectionable even if some criticism offered is erroneous. In Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1973]2SCR757 :John Stuart Mill, in his essay on 'Liberty', pointed out the need for allowing even erroneous opinions to be expressed on the ground that the correct ones become more firmly established by what may be called the 'dialectical' process of a struggle with wrong ones ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2637; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)276; 2001CriLJ3329; 2001(3)Crimes276(SC); JT2001(5)SC440; 2001(4)SCALE348; (2001)6SCC181; [2001]3SCR942
ORDERSyed Shah Mahoammed Quadri, J. 1. Leave is granted in all the special leave petitions.2. These four appeals arise out of the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos.2708/1999, 2709/1999, 2710/1999,8/2000, 52/2000 and 200/2000 dated February 29, 2000. Criminal Appeal Nos 689 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1522/2000) is filed by T.T. Antony, Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Kannur, Civil Appeal No. 4066 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8840/2000) is filed by fourteen police constables; and Criminal Appeal Nos. 690-691 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos. 2724-25/2000 are filed by the State of Kerala. These appeals relate to the same incident and raise common questions of facts and law so they are being dealt with together.3. The relevant facts, giving rise to these appeals, which have a strong political backdrop, need to be noticed for appreciating the contentions of the parties.4. The Communist Party of India (Mar...
Tag this Judgment!