Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3460; JT1999(7)SC226; 1999(6)SCALE18; (1999)7SCC683
ORDER1. Out order dated 14th October, 1998 shall be treated as a part of this order.2. Mr. N. Ravi Shankar, Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh has filed an affidavit dated 8th of December, 1998 in this Court on 11th of December, 1998. Along with the affidavit, he has also filed summary of the Justice C.D. Parekh Commission Report. From the affidavit of Mr. Ravi Shankar it transpires that the Parekh Commission Report, which was submitted as early as in 1988, relating to the riots which took place in Meerut in September, 1982 was considered by State Cabinet and the following decisions were taken by it.i) Report of the Commission be tabled on the floor of the House in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.ii) Report relating to the incident of 20-9-1982 was received by the State Government in November, 1988. Since then up till now no former Government considered it proper to take any decision. The Commission did not fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC968; JT1988(1)SC556; (1988)IILLJ113SC; 1988(1)SCALE517; (1988)2SCC250; [1988]3SCR255; 1988(2)SLJ164(SC); 1988(1)LC633(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The above petition was originally filed by two members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, by name S/Shri R.L. Gupta and S.M. Aggarwal. Since the Court was of the view that the petition of Shri S.M. Aggarwal should be considered independently, he was asked to file a separate petition. The present petition was, therefore, confined to Shri R.L. Gupta, who is hereafter referred to as 'the petitioner'.2. Shri R.L. Gupta, the petitioner joined the Judicial Service of Punjab on January 23, 1962 and became a member of the Delhi Judicial Service on its initial Constitution on August 2, 1971. He was confirmed in the said service as a Sub-Judge on August 6, 1971. He was sent on deputation as the first District & Sessions Judge, Sikkim at Gangtok on August 19, 1976. While he was on such deputation he was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service under Rule 16 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. At the end of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.792 OF2014Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' ... Petitioner versus Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others ... Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by a former Additional District and Sessions Judge of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. The factual narration in the writ petition incorporates allegations of sexual harassment aimed at the petitioner, at the behest of a sitting Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (herein after referred to as, 'the High Court'), who has been impleaded by name as respondent no.3. The authenticity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner, which have been expressly disputed by respondent no.3, would stand affirmed or repudiated only after culmination of due process. Such being the sensitivity of the matter, it would be inappropriate to disclose the identity either of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC258; 1969(17)BLJR392; 1969CriLJ520; [1969]1SCR387
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. The Appeal shall stand dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. Reasons for our judgment will follow. Stay order is vacated.HIDAYATULLAH, C. J.:2. This appeal is brought against an order of the High Court at Patna, November 4, 1967, dismissing a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. By that petition the appellants sought a declaration that a notification of the Governor of Bihar appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, was 'ultra vires' illegal and Inoperative' and for restraining the Commission from proceeding with the Inquiry. The High Court dismissed the petition without issuing a rule but gave detailed reasons in its orders. The appellants now appeal by special leave granted by this Court. After the hearing of the appeal concluded we ordered the dismissal of the appeal but reserved the reasons which we now proceed to give.3. As is common knowledge there was for a time no stable Government in Bihar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC714; 1989CriLJ903; JT1989(1)SC21; 1988(2)SCALE42; (1989)1SCC494; [1989]1SCR20; 1989(1)LC340(SC)
ORDERWhereas the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi is of the opinion that a judicial inquiry is necessary into matters of public importance mentioned below; Now therefore, the Administrator is pleased to constitute a Committee, in consultation with the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court consisting of Mr. Justice N. N. Goswami and Mr. Justice D. P. Wadhwa Hon'ble Judges of the High Court to inquire into and record their findings on the following:(i) The incident of the 15th January, 1988 in St. Stephen's College, University of Delhi regarding apprehension of a lawyer by the police.(ii) The incident and reported lathi-charge on the 21st January, 1988 outside the office of the DCP/North, Delhi.(iii) Circumstances leading to presence of a mob in Tis Hazari premises on 17th February, 1988 and the resultant violence.(iv) Any other incidental development connected with the above.The Committee is requested to ascertain the facts leading to the aforesaid incidents with a view to iden...
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
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.125 OF2013SUDESH DOGRA ... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT (S) WITH WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.251 OF2011JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.125 of 2013 is the Political Secretary of J & K National Panthers Party (JKNPP) which is a political party recognised by the Election Commission of India. Setting out figures and statistics of innocent people who have lost their lives in incidents of crime and terrorists acts committed from time to time in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the persistent failure of the State Government to prevent such untoward incidents have been alleged alongwith the perceived inefficiency of the State Government in providing adequate relief and rehabilitation measures including compensation following such incidents. Specifically, the writ petition centres around an incident that had occurred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.152 OF2013TOFAN SINGH Appellant Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2214 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL No.827 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.835 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL No.836 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 OF2013CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1826 OF2013CRIMINAL APPEAL No.433 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6338 OF2015CRIMINAL APPEAL No.77 OF2015CRIMINAL APPEAL No.90 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.91 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1202 OF2017JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1.These Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arise by virtue of a reference order of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC31 The facts in that 1 appeal have been set out in that judgment in some detail, and need not be repeated by us. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court recorded that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2015Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another Petitioner(s) versus Union of India Respondent(s) With |WRIT PETITION (C) No.14 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.23 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.24 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.70 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.83 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.108 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.124 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.209 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.309 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.310 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.323 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.341 OF2015| |TRANSFER PETITION(C) No.391 OF2015 |TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.971 OF2015 | | JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.Index |Sl.No.|Contents |Paragraphs|Pages | |1. |The Recusal Order | 1 - 18| 1 - | | | | |15 | | | | | | |2. |The Reference Order | 1 - 101| 16 - 169| |I |The Challenge | 1 - | 16 - | | | |9 |19 | |II. |The Background to the Challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC66; 1956CriLJ156; [1955]2SCR955
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution arises out of an application under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act (XXXII of 1952) and section 8 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act (XXXVII of 1850) read with article 227 of the Constitution filed by the respondent against the appellant in the High Court of Judicature of Patna and raises an important question as to whether the Commissioner appointed under Act XXXVII of 1850 is a Court. 2. The respondent is a Member of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch). The State Government received reports to the effect that the respondent had been guilty of serious misconduct and corrupt practices in the discharge of his official duties while employed as Sub-Divisional Officer at Aurangabad and they accordingly decided that an inquiry into the truth of the various charges against him should be made under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act XXXVII of 1850, hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!