Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Constitutional conventions in S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994Matching Fragments
The relations of the Governor-General and the Governor with the Ministers were not regulated by the Act but were left to be governed by an Instrument of Instructions issued by the Crown. It was considered undesirable to define these relations in the Act or to impose an obligation on the Governor-General or Governor to be guided by the advice of their Ministers, since such a course might convert a constitutional convention into a rule of law and thus bring it within the cognisance of the Court. Prior to the Constitution [42nd Amendment] Act, 1976, under the Constitutional convention, the President was bound to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers [Re: Shamsher Singh and Anr. v. Slate of Punjab . By the 42nd Amendment, it was expressly so provided in Article 74[1], The object of Article 74[2] was thus not to exclude any material or document from the scrutiny of the courts. This is not to say that the rule of exclusion laid down in Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act is given a go-bye. However, it only emphasises that the said rule can be invoked in appropriate cases.