Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1407; JT1992(5)SC92; 1992(1)SCALE484; (1992)4SCC605; [1992]Supp1SCR53
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve for decision substantially the same points. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992, the petitioner Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Karnal in Haryana. Both these petitions are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha. It is unnecessary to state further facts herein and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992-Mrs. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(2)SC63; 1992(2)SCALE311; (1992)2SCC341; 1992(1)LC575(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, K. Jayachandra Reddy and G.N. Ray, JJ.1. During the course of the hearing of this petition Mr. Kapil Sibal urged the following contentions for our consideration:(1) Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, mandates that the Speaker of the House of the People shall either admit or refuse to admit a motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India only 'after' considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him and failure to comply with the said sine-qua-non, viz., consideration of available material before admitting the motion, vitiates his decision for non-application of mind. In the present case since the then Speaker, respondent No. 3, is not shown to have applied his mind to the available material before admitting the motion, his decision to admit the motion and constitute the Committee comprising respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is unsustainable in law. (2) Sub-section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P. No. 58103/2015 dated 2.3.2016.) 1. These writ appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 2nd of March, 2016 in W.P.No.58103/2015 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant as not maintainable and consequently dismissing five interlocutory applications which were listed before him on that day. 2. The appellant is presently the incumbent Upa-Lokayukta in the State of Karnataka. His case is after a span of over 20 years of law practice, he was appointed as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the year 2006. He was appointed as Upa-Lokayukta in the year 2013 under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short hereinafter referred as the Act ) and he continues to hold the said office since then. 3. It is his further case that a notice of motion signed by 78 members of the Karnataka Legislative ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE26H DAY OF APRIL2016PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT APPEAL Nos.599 600/2016 (GMRES) BETWEEN : Justice Subhash B. Adi, S/o Late Shri Bashetty Adi, Age 64 years, R/at:94. A, 9th Cross, 10th Main, R.M.V.Extension, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560 080. ...APPELLANT (By Sri B.V.Acharya, Senior Counsel, a/w Sri Ashok B Patil, Adv.) AND :1. 2. The Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 233. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Public Administrative 2 Reforms, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 233. RESPONDENTS (By Sri Madhusudhan R Naik, Advocate General, a/w Sri D.Nagaraj, AGA) . . . . These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P. No.58103/2015 dated 2.3.2016. this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following: These writ appeals coming on for prelimina...
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 : AIR1992SC320; JT1991(6)SC184; 1991(2)SCALE844; (1991)4SCC699; [1991]Supp2SCR1
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.These writ petitions raise certain constitutional issues of quite some importance bearing on the construction of Articles 121 and 124 of the Constitution of India and of the 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968' even as they in the context in which they are brought, are somewhat unfortunate.Notice was given by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha, the term of which came to an end upon its dissolution, of a Motion for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of this Court. On 12th March, 1991, the motion was admitted by the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting of Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice P.D. Desai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, and Mr. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy, a distinguished jurist in terms of Section 3(2) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.The occasion for such controversy as is raised in these proceedings is the refusal of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.6905 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14623 of 2020) Mohd. Mustafa .... Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. . Respondent(s) W I T H Civil Appeal Nos. 6906-6909 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14982-14985 of 2020) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Governor of Punjab by which Mr. Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Police (Head of Police Force) (hereinafter referred to "DGP (HoPF)), the Appellants filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. By an order dated 17.01.2020, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 07.02.2019 on the ground 1 | Pa ge that preparation of the panel for selection of DGP (HoPF) for the State of Punjab was in contravention of a judgement of this Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India1 apart from others. Further, a direction was give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All99; (1996)3UPLBEC1617
ORDERR. Dayal, J. 1. Following question has been referred by a Division Bench of this Court for decision by the full Bench: 'Whether the Deputy Director of Education can be said to be functioning as a Tribunal within the meaning of Rule 5 in Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, while exercising the powers conferred on him under sub-section (7) of Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.'2. This special appeal arose from an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition which was filed questioning the validity of an order passed by theDeputy Director of Education under Section 16-. A(7) of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. A.L. Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare (as he then was). A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the third responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 6.4.1997 whereby the Collector had published the estimated minimum value of the land.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners are the residents of village Parsa in the town of Patna and they possess land in that village. The Collector, Patna, by his order dated 6.4,1997 (Annexure-1), estimated the value of the agricultural as also the homestead lands of village Parsa and other villages falling within the district of Patna. The valuation so-fixed was to be made effective from 10th of September, 1997. According to the order, the valuation of homestead and agricultural land of village Parsa was determined at Rs. 5619/- and Rs. 1333/- per katha respectively. It is the stand of the petitioners that the Collector has no such power to determine the value of the land.3. Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!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!