Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC375; 1954CriLJ993; (1954)IMLJ702(SC); [1954]1SCR1150
Mukherjea, J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution, praying for a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for calling up the records of certain criminal proceedings stated against the petitioner by the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi, and for quashing the same on the ground that these proceedings are without jurisdiction, having been commenced in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under article 20(2) of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was a member of the Indian Civil Service and till lately was employed as Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in the Government of India. Certain imputations of misbehavior by the petitioner, while holding offices of various descriptions under the Government of India, came to the notice of the Central Government of and the latter being satisfied that there were prima facie good grounds for making an enquiry directed a formal and public enquiry to be made as to the truth or falsity of the...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 25293 of 2008.2. Leave granted.3. This judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned appeals as common question of law on somewhat similar facts arise in all the appeals for consideration of this Court.4. The Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 25th February, 2008 has filed the present appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court declined to interfere with the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein the Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act had set aside the orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry afresh from the stage of nomination of the inquiry officer.5....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC493; [1960]2SCR569
Shah, J.1. Sardar Kapur Singh (who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant) was admitted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Civil Service upon the result of a competitive examination held at Delhi in 1931. After a period of training in the United Kingdom, the appellant returned to India in November, 1933 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore in the Province of Punjab. He served in the Province in various capacities between the years 1933 and 1947. In July, 1947, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and continued to hold that office till February 11, 1948, when he was transferred to Hoshiarpur at which place he continued to hold the office of Deputy Commissioner till a few days before April 14, 1949. On April 13, 1949, the appellant was served with an order passed by the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service. On May 5, 1950, the appellant submitted a representation to the President of India protesting agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.416 OF2018(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5661 of 2017) DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN Appellant VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. Respondents JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5th May, 2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.1015 of 2016.2. this Court:- On 20th November, 2017 the following order was passed by Heard learned counsel for the parties. Certain adverse remarks were recorded against respondent No.2-Bhaskar Karbhari Gaidwad by the Principal and Head of the Department of the College of Pharmacy where respondent No.2 was employed. Respondent No.2 sought 1 sanction for his prosecution under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for certain other connected offences. The said matter was dealt with by the petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10084 of 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.9132 OF2015 HIRAL P. HARSORA AND ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 25.9.2014 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It raises an important question as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the 2005 Act).3. On 3.4.2007, Kusum Narottam Harsora and her mother Pushpa Narottam Harsora filed a complaint under the 2005 Act against Pradeep, the brother/son, and his wife, and two sisters/daughters, alleging various acts of violence against them. The said complaint was withdrawn on 27.6.2007 with liberty to file a fresh complaint.4. Nothing happened for over three years till the same duo of mother and daughter filed two separate compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL/CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.120 OF2012Manohar Lal Sharma .Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.463 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.429 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.498 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.515 OF2012AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.283 OF2013ORDER R.M. LODHA, J.The question for the purposes of this order really resolves itself into this: whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act for short) in a matter where the inquiry/investigation into the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) is being monitored by the Court. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail, suffice, however, to say that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered preliminary enquiries (PEs) against unknown public servants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL/CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.120 OF2012Manohar Lal Sharma .Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.463 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.429 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.498 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.515 OF2012AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.283 OF2013ORDER R.M. LODHA, J.The question for the purposes of this order really resolves itself into this: whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act for short) in a matter where the inquiry/investigation into the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) is being monitored by the Court. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail, suffice, however, to say that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered preliminary enquiries (PEs) against unknown public servants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.38 OF1997Dr. Subramanian Swamy Petitioner Versus Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.21 OF2004Centre for Public Interest Litigation Petitioner Versus Union of India Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short, the DSPE Act), which was inserted by Act 45 of 2003, reads as under:Section 6-A. Approval of Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation.- (1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to- (a) the employees of the Central Government of the Level of Joint Secretary and above; and (b) such officers as are appointed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2011SC1267
1. The two writ petitions filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India give rise to a substantial question of law and of public importance as to the legality of the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas (respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 348 of 2010) as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 ("2003 Act" for short). 2. Government is not accountable to the courts in respect of policy decisions. However, they are accountable for the legality of such decisions. While deciding this case, we must keep in mind the difference between legality and merit as also between judicial review and merit review. On 3rd September, 2010, the High Powered Committee ("HPC" for short), duly constituted under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act, had recommended the name of Shri P.J. Thomas for appointment to the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner. The validity of this recommendation falls for judicial scrutiny in this case. If a ...
Tag this Judgment!