Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 375 (8.55 seconds)
Documents citing S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994

Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors on 2 January, 2017

43 In the decision of nine judges in S R Bommai v. Union of India[77], the judgments of Justice P.B. Sawant (speaking for himself and Justice Kuldip Singh), Justice Ramaswamy and Justice BP Jeevan Reddy (speaking for himself and Justice Agarwal) have adverted to the provisions of Section 123(3). Secularism was held to be a part of the basic features of the Constitution in Bommai. The meaning of Section 123(3) was not directly in issue in the case, nor have all the judges who delivered separate judgments commented on the provision. Justice P.B. Sawant rejected the submission that an appeal only to the religion of the candidate is prohibited :
Supreme Court of India Cites 117 - Cited by 54 - M B Lokur - Full Document

B. Archana Reddy And Ors. vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Its Secretary, Law ... on 7 November, 2005

180. India is secular republic. Constitution injuncts the State to be religion blind in its actions, but confers a fundamental human right (Articles 25 to 28 of Constitution of India) on all persons freedom to profess, practice and propagate any religion. Secularism is basic feature of the Constitution of India. (See S.R. Bommai v. Union of India). If State action tends to stratify religious groups for conferring State largess or benefits or for burdening them without justifiable reasons, it would be ex facie discrimination on grounds of religion. It is to be abhorred. If the State moulds its policies based only on religion, it would be a mockery of trinity provisions of equality (Articles 14, 15 and 16). By reason of Articles 29,30,44 and 372 of Constitution of India, the State is always entitled to adopt seemingly discriminatory policy in relation to various religious communities if such a thing is not based only on the ground of religion. Every State action must be informed by reason and such reason must stand the scrutiny of the Court in primary review and/or secondary review. It would not be necessary to refer to these aspects for the purpose of this consideration of the point. The following case law would support the view that any classification based only on religion would be discriminatory violating Articles 15(2) and 16(1) of Constitution of India. Preferring members of any community or class for no reason other than religion is discrimination for its own sake prohibited by Articles 15(1) and 16(2). If caste in a religion or occupational group in a religion plus something can justify such preference, it might be free from criticism that such discrimination is pernicious.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 127 - Cited by 3 - G Raghuram - Full Document

Anand S/O Narayanrao Jammu vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 4 May, 2018

39. The petitioners have pointed out judgment in the case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, (supra) to urge that availability of material to support satisfaction is justiciable and the contention that defect in Ordinance also travels to Act No. IX of 2017. Paragraphs to which our attention has been invited are already mentioned by us supra. Additionally, paragraphs 374 and 434 were also pressed into service by Shri Mirza, learned counsel. Paragraph 434 summarizes the conclusions.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

G. Lakshmi Reddy And Ors. vs Principal Secretary To Government, ... on 23 November, 2001

30. There cannot be any doubt, as has been held in S.R. Bommai (4 supra), that the power of judicial review is a constituent power and cannot be abdicated by judicial process of interpretation. But the same by itself would not mean that the apex Court in another decision cannot lay down a law to the effect as to how and in what manner such a constituent power should be exercised.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.. on 2 January, 2017

43 In the decision of nine judges in S R Bommai v. Union of India77, the judgments of Justice P.B. Sawant (speaking for himself and Justice Kuldip Singh), Justice Ramaswamy and Justice BP Jeevan Reddy (speaking for himself and Justice Agarwal) have adverted to the provisions of Section 123(3). Secularism was held to be a part of the basic features of the 77 (1994) 3 SCC 1 106 107 Constitution in Bommai. The meaning of Section 123(3) was not directly in issue in the case, nor have all the judges who delivered separate judgments commented on the provision. Justice P.B. Sawant rejected the submission that an appeal only to the religion of the candidate is prohibited :
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 114 - Cited by 0 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Haribhau S/O Kashinath Gulhane And ... vs The Maharashtra, State Election ... on 4 May, 2018

39. The petitioners have pointed out judgment in the case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, (supra) to urge that availability of material to support satisfaction is justiciable and the contention that defect in Ordinance also travels to Act No. IX of 2017. Paragraphs to which our attention has been invited are already mentioned by us supra. Additionally, paragraphs 374 and 434 were also pressed into service by Shri Mirza, learned counsel. Paragraph 434 summarizes the conclusions.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ambedkarite Party Of India, Nagpur Thr. ... vs Governor Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 4 May, 2018

39. The petitioners have pointed out judgment in the case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, (supra) to urge that availability of material to support satisfaction is justiciable and the contention that defect in Ordinance also travels to Act No. IX of 2017. Paragraphs to which our attention has been invited are already mentioned by us supra. Additionally, paragraphs 374 and 434 were also pressed into service by Shri Mirza, learned counsel. Paragraph 434 summarizes the conclusions.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 January, 2017

63 In S R Bommai v. Union of India[57], Justice B P Jeevan Reddy delivering a judgment on behalf of himself and Justice S C Agrawal observed that the requirement of laying a proclamation under Article 356 before both Houses of Parliament and the provision for its cessation unless approved by a resolution passed by both Houses before the expiry of two months “is conceived both as a check upon the power and as a vindication of the principle of Parliamentary supremacy over the executive”.
Supreme Court of India Cites 95 - Cited by 155 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next