Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3127; JT2006(8)SC1; 2006(8)SCALE257; (2006)7SCC1
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.Background1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge amendments made in the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the RP Act', 1951') through Representation of People (Amendment) Act 40 of 2003 which came into force from 28th August, 2003. By the said Amendment Act 2003, the requirement of 'domicile' in the State Concerned for getting elected to the Council of States is deleted which according to the petitioner violates the principle of Federalism, a basic structure of the Constitution.In the writ petition, there is a further challenge to the amendments in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the RP Act, 1951 by which Open Ballet System is introduced which, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of 'secrecy' which, according to the petitioner, is the essence of free and fair elections as also the voter's freedom of expression which is the basic feature of the Constitution and the subject matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2357 OF2017Government of NCT of Delhi Appellant Versus Union of India & Another Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.175 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.539 OF1986IN CIVIL APPEAL No.2358 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2359 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2360 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2361 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2362 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2363 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2364 OF2017AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.277 OF2017JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself, A.K. Sikri and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.) 2 CONTENTS A. Prologue 322 B. Rivalised Submissions 2223 B.1 Submissions on behalf of the appellant 2334 B.2 Submissions on behalf of the respondents. 3445 C. Ideals/principles of governance 4550 representative D. Constitutional morality 5054 E. Constitutional objectivity 5457 F. Constitutional governance and the conception of legitimate constitutional trust. 5768 G. Collective responsibility. 6873 H. Federal functionalism and democ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013REPORTABLE BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J1 Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose 1 (2010) 12 SCC7941 for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013REPORTABLE BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J1 Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose 1 (2010) 12 SCC7941 for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments of th...
Tag this Judgment!