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 : (2009)5MLJ587(SC); 2009(3)SCALE22; (2009)3SCC200; 2009(2)LC850(SC):2009AIRSCW2819
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Democracy is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution and rule of law and free and fare election are basic features of democracy. Democracy postulates that there should be periodical elections so that people may be in a position either to re-elect the same representatives or choose new representatives. Democracy also contemplates that elections should be free and fair and the voters should be in a position to vote for the candidates of their choice. The pre-requisite of this is that the elections are not rigged and manipulated and the candidates or their agents are not able to resort to unfair means and malpractices. These are, in substance, the observations made by H.R. Khanna, J. in his concurring judgment in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain and Anr. : [1978]2SCR405 .2. Sir Winston Churchill described the importance of vote in a democratic election in the following words:At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC972; (1975)1SCC544; [1975]3SCR425; 1975(7)LC169(SC)
1. The short question which arises for determination in this appeal against the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman & Diu dismissing petition filed by Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare appellant to question the election of Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria respondent to the Lok Sabha is whether the said respondent at the relevant time was a citizen of India.2. The respondent was declared elected to the Lok Sabha from the Moraugao parliamentary constituency in the elections held in March 1971. The appellant who had been validly nominated as a candidate at the election for the above constituency withdrew his candidature and did not contest the said election. After the result of the election had been declared, the appellant filed election petition to have the election of the respondent declared void on the ground that on the date of the election the respondent was not qualified to be chosen to fill a parliamentary seat under the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC2097; (1970)2SCC567; [1971]2SCR197
1. The Judgment of S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat and C.A. Vaidialingam JJ., was delivered by Sikri, J. Bhargava, J. and Mitter, J. gave separate opinions.2. These four election petitions filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act (XXXI of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Article 71 of the Constitution of India challenge the election of the respondent Shri V.V. Giri, to the office of the President of India. The petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1969, Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, was a candidate in the election, and so was the petitioner in Election Petition No. 3, Shri Phul Singh. The nominations of both these petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer. Election Petition No. 4 was filed by Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy, M.P., and twelve other electors, all members of Parliament. Election Petition No. 5 was filed by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar, M.P., and nine other members of Parliament and eight members of Legislative Assemblies of Haryana, Madhya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.237 OF2022Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. Petitioners v. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. The main challenge in this writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India is to the legality and validity of the action of constituting a Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir under provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002 and the exercise of delimitation undertaken by the Commission. RELEVANT FACTS2 The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 bearing C.O. No.272 was issued by the Honble President of 1 India on 5th August 2019. The said order was issued in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. The said order directed that all the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, subject to m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC694; (1969)3SCC268; [1970]2SCR835
ORDERSub : Construction of R.P.S. Main Dam-Contract of M/s. M.C.C. (Pvt.) Ltd., Arbitration in disputes arising out of.In pursuance of Rule 8(b) of Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the CPC, 1908 read with Clause (7) of Section 2 of the Code, the Governor is pleased to appoint Smt. Kanta Kathuria, Advocate Bikaner as Special Government Pleader to conduct the above noted case on behalf of the State of Rajasthan alongwith Shri Murali Manohar Vyas, Government Advocate, Jodhpur.By order,Sd. D. S. Acharya26-6-65(D. S. Acharya)Joint Legal Remembrancer.By subsequent orders, which we do not consider necessary to quote here, her remuneration was fixed at Rs. 150/- per day for each date of hearing, Rs. 75/- per day for days of travel and dates on which the case was adjourned, and days spent on preparation of the case. Mrs. Kathuria began appearing in the case from March 27, 1965. It is an admitted fact that she was paid for work between that date and November 28, 1966 a sum of Rs. 26,325/- an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC399; 1983(2)SCALE800; (1984)2SCC404; [1984]1SCR939; 1984(16)LC179(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. At the conclusion of the hearing of the above appeals on November 16, 1983, we pronounced the following order :Heard counsel for the parties. The appeals are allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside without any order as to costs. We now give our reasons.2. Two questions arise for consideration in these three appeals which are filed against the judgment and order dated July 10, 1981 of the High Court of Allahabad in Election Petition No. 7 of 1980. They are :1. Whether the Secretary of a State Legislative Assembly is not qualified to be appointed as the Returning Officer at an election held to fill a seat in the Rajya Sabha ?2. Whether a person elected as a member of a Legislative Assembly but who has not made and subscribed the prescribed oath or affirmation as required by Article 188 of the Constitution can validly propose a person as a candidate at an election held for filling a seat in the Rajya Sabha ?3. In February, 1980 the Legislative Assembl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, a recognized political party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir has filed this appeal before this Court seeking to impugn the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, dated 2nd of June 2009. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions which raised identical questions. They were heard together and disposed of by the impugned judgment.3. The main thrust of the challenge before the High Court, as well as before this Court is on the following question: whether or not the action of the government in postponing the delimitation of territorial constituencies of the State pertaining to the Legislative Assembly until the relevant figures published after the first census taken after 2026 is legally sustainable?4. In fact the appellant is aggrieved by an amendment to the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act 1957, especially the amendment in Section 3 thereof. This amendment has been brought about in 2002. Section 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC329; 1970CriLJ499a; (1969)3SCC419; [1970]1SCR87
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. The appellant (Rev. Father Monteiro) is a resident of Goa. After the annexation of Goa by India, he had the choice of becoming an Indian national or retaining Portuguese nationality. He choose the latter and was registered as a foreigner. He also obtained a temporary residential permit which allowed him to stay on in India till November 13, 1964. The period of stay expired and he did not ask for its extension or renewal. He was ordered to leave India by the Lt. Governor of Goa. The Lt. Governor is empowered by a notification of the President of India issued under Article 239 of the Constitution to discharge the functions of the Central Government and his order has the same force and validity as if made by the Central Government. Rev. Father Monteiro disobeyed the order, and in consequence was prosecuted under Section 14 read with Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 days simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- (or 5 days...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!