Leaders And Chief Whips Of Recognised Parties And Groups In Parliament Facilities Act 1998 Section 3 Facilities To The Leaders And Chief Whips Of Recognised Groups And Parties - Judgment Search Results

Balchandra L. Jarkiholi and ors Vs. B.S. Yeddyurappa and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Government withdrawing the support given to the Government under his leadership. The Appellants were informed that their act was in violation Judge.31. On account of such difference of opinion between the Chief Justice and his companion Judge, the matter was referred to voted in the House contrary to the directions of the whip issued by the BJP. However, even such a transgression could that dissent is not defection and the Tenth Schedule while recognising dissent prohibits defection.29. The learned Judge also considered the case emerge from the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the facts of the case may be summarised as to deny the allegations made regarding their moving in a group from Karnataka to Goa and to other places where they observed that if a Member violates the above conditions, the Parliament has taken care to see by enacting the Tenth Schedule being in the domain of procedure, they were intended to facilitate the holding of an inquiry and not to frustrate or had been given to the Governor and if such an act would amount to voluntarily giving up the membership of a Nariman, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Appellants in SLP(C)Nos.33123- 33155 of 2010, Balchandra L. Jarkiholi & Ors. v. B.S. Yeddyurappa

Kuldeep Pednekar Vs. Ajit Pandurang Gogate and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR606; 2006(4)BomCR392

in 1985 as Congress [Socialist] Party candidate, formed under the leadership of Shri Sharad Pawar and was elected as a Corporator is now proved as a fact as held by the Chief Election Officer, duty forwarded to Tehsildar that the respondent No. the Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates issued by the Election Commission of India. [hereinafter the Opposition Legislative Assembly (Shiv Sena)2. Shri Suresh Prabhu-Member of Parliament, Rajapur (Shiv Sena)3. Shri Appa Gogate-Ex MLA from Deogad (BJP)4. the election to be void under Section 100 of the Act. The petitioner respectfully submits that since the affidavit in the same ought to be dismissed in exercise of powers under Section 86(1) of the Act read with provisions of Order VII, time to time in exercise of their authority under Article 324 of Constitution of India.[c] The respondent No. 1, his Election

Subhash Desai Vs. Principal Secretary, Governor Of Maharashtra

Court: Supreme Court of India

other rules and regulations which specify the structure of the leadership of the party. If the rival groups submit two or of confidence for the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, Mr. Shinde. The second whip directed all MLAs of proceedings under Paragraph 2(1)(b) as well. When there are two Whips appointed by two or more factions of the political party, taken into account in treating a political party as a recognised political party is the number of seats secured by that parties are classified into recognised political parties and unrecognised political parties under the Symbols Order.42 Recognised political parties are further classified to the faction led by him. The ECI directed the groups led by Mr. Shinde and Mr. Thackeray to furnish their if the proclamation is approved by both the Houses of Parliament. It was also held that it would be open to on 29 June 2022 cannot dilute the illegality of the action of the Governor in directing a trust vote; h. The Tenth Schedule relates to the association of persons registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act 1951. Political decisions of the Speaker were recorded in a communication dated 3 July 2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Maharashtra

Anoop Baranwal Vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Law And Justice Secretar ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

and the Leader of the Opposition (and in case no Leader of Opposition is available, the consultation should be with the Supreme Court and the conditions of the service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after the People shall, when no such Leader has been so recognised, include the Leader of the single largest group in opposition Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 to recognise political parties and allot symbols. Rule 15 of the said Order is upheld the right of prisoners, the poor and other vulnerable groups to enlist its constitutional jurisdiction by simply sending a letter the tenure of Office of the Election Commissioners. Most pertinently, Parliament has enacted the 1991 Act, as contemplated in Article 324(5). of income-tax on the value of such rent-free residence, conveyance facilities, sumptuary allowance, medical facilities and such other conditions of service appointment of election tribunals, should be vested in the Governor acting in his discretion, subject to the approval of the Council and the Third Judges Case in Special Reference No.1 of 1998, Re7. It is contended that the Court may, apart from 1951 Act read in juxtaposition go to show that while Section 16 of the 1950 Act provides for disqualifications for registration PETITIONS1 In this clutch of writ petitions maintained under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Court is called upon to consider

Manmohan Singh Narula & Anr vs.speaker, Lok Sabha

Court: Delhi

finds its statutory definition in the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1997. Section 2 thereof reads 12. Commission. of Central Information xxx xxx xxx (3) The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the 6 of 9 3. Facilities to the Leaders and Chief Whips of recognised groups and parties. Subject to any rules made Furthermore, Section 3 of The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognised Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998, the term the parties, recognise any one of the Leaders of such parties as the Leader of the Opposition for the purposes of of The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognised Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998, the term Leader of Opposition virtue of holding any office of, or representation in, a Parliamentary Committee or other Committee, Council, Board, Commission or other body mention as under: W.P.(C) 6886/2019 Page 6 of 9 3. Facilities to the Leaders and Chief Whips of recognised groups and 9. Moreover, Section 4 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 deals with the appointments of members to the National Whips of Recognised Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998, the term Leader of Opposition finds its mention as under: Members on recommendations of Selection Committee. The relevant portion of Section 4 thereof is reproduced as under: 4. Appointment of Chairperson first proviso to sub-section (1). (Emphasis supplied) 10. Furthermore, Section 3 of The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognised Parties and

Imran Ali Vs. Union of India and Anr

Court: Delhi

the Leader of Opposition; (f) attention is invited to the Leaders And Chief Whips Of Recognised Parties and Groups In Parliament and Mr. Noor Anand, Advs. for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 14.01.2015 Opposition; (f) attention is invited to the Leaders And Chief Whips Of Recognised Parties and Groups In Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998, attention is invited to the Leaders And Chief Whips Of Recognised Parties and Groups In Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998, particularly to even if having the maximum number of seats amongst the parties in opposition, cannot nominate the Leader of Opposition.11. However, when to the Leaders And Chief Whips Of Recognised Parties and Groups In Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998, particularly to Section 2(b) thereof the Speaker may recognise an association of members as a Parliamentary Party or Group for the purpose of functioning in the pleasure in a democracy does not mean a licence to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically but was unable to state as Whips Of Recognised Parties and Groups In Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998, particularly to Section 2(b) thereof to contend that thereunder also Parties and Groups In Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998, particularly to Section 2(b) thereof to contend that thereunder also only a party Of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, Rule 389 whereof titled Residuary Powers enables the Speaker to regulate the

Purno Agitok SangmA. Vs. Pranab Mukherjee.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Minister of the Union. According to the respondent, under the Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognized Parties and Groups in Parliament advantage of reading the judgments of both My Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother Justice Ranjan Gogoi. I regret dealt with. Under the provisions of The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognized Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998 to the respondent, under the Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognized Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998 and the having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Election Petition filed by Shri Purno Agitok Sangma did of The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognized Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998 Act and Rules framed there in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament.1. Substituted by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, section 3, prior to filing of his nomination papers, which was duly acted upon by the Speaker of the House, the challenge thrown Whips of Recognized Parties and Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998 Act and Rules framed there under no remuneration to the provision of the Act that would require specific notice is Section 15 which provides that the Rules made by the Supreme of the same was also deferred to 11.00 a.m. of 3.7.2012. All the remaining nomination papers were rejected on the date

N.K.Pavithran Vs. M.Nandakumar

Court: Kerala

Congress Party on 4.12.2004 and finally removed him from the leadership of the parliamentary party and Chief whip of UDF. At of the council, after removing Sri.N.K.Pavithran from the leadership and chief whip of the party. The averments in paragraph 24 show the Chairmanship W.P.(C) No.14893 of 2012 :4: and issued a whip to the members of UDF to vote for him in of the no confidence motion moved by the rival political parties on 21.4.2008 and by the said W.P.(C) No.14893 of 2012 which reads as follows: "Therefore, if a member or a group of the elected members of the political party takes a the Secretary of Kalamassery Municipality in his capacity as UDF parliamentary party leader and whip. The petitioner had produced Ext.P6 decision was an understanding within the Congress party and Sri. Pavitran acted against the decision. In this context the testimony of RW3, September, 2015 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P2 petitions were filed under Sections 3 and 4 of Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) belonging to INC to the office on 3.12.2004. Out of 30 councillors of INC only six of them appeared before the

Pallickal Naseer Vs. The State Election Commission

Court: Kerala

Petition also the petitioners herein wanted only a change in leadership, which they had been demanding before the leadership. Similarly, the formed by the party, with a particular leader as the Chief Minister, would not also amount to a voluntary act of confidence motion. In Ext.P8 as well as X1 series of whips the direction was to abstain from the discussion. In case the pleading in a legal proceeding that puts the opposite parties on notice of what is sought to be asserted against 2014-N27membership in the political party. If a member or a group of the elected members of the political party takes a President of the Manimala Grama Panchayat, who was the congress parliamentary party leader and supported by all other members of UDF, stand from that of the political party as such, and acts against the policies of the political party in which they disqualified from being members of the Pallikkal Grama Panchayat, under Section 3(1)(a) of Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition and Defection) Act, 1999 their own action they became disqualified in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. Election Commission allowed the petition declaring the

B.Muhammedkunhi Vs. K.Abdulla

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker224

the petitioner had acted against the directions of his party leadership and that he was arraying himself with the rival coalition. that she was considered as the Parliamentary Party Leader and Chief Whip of the Kerala Congress (J) and LDF and therefore, on 17/07/2006 and therefore even if he obeyed the subsequent whips, it is immaterial." In Faisal's case (2008 (3) KLT 534) party to which they belonged, by aligning themselves with political parties opposing their political parties and Front. The evidence adduced, therefore, thus in para 8: "Therefore, if a member or a group of the elected members of the political party takes a validity of the Tenth Schedule. The disqualification from membership of Parliament and Legislatures were provided to a member on his voluntarily for the purpose of applicability of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, it was contended that she has voluntarily given up terms of the provisions for disqualification under the Act, viz. Section 3(1)(a) of the Act is vitiated in the light of was held as sufficient to attract the mischief of Section 3(1)(a) and the following dictum was laid down in paragraphs 11