Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 578 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2017

He further argued that Krishna Iyer, J.’s statement in Sunil Batra (supra) that a due process clause as contained in the U.S. Constitution is now to be read into Article 21, is a standalone statement of the law and that “substantive due process” is an expression which brings in its wake concepts which do not fit into the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 294 - Cited by 384 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

K. Valambal And Ors. vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 6 October, 1980

We have elaborately discussed this aspect of the case and have held that the jail authorities, in the interest of jail discipline only, segregated some of the petitioners and put them in separate cells, and restrict their movements in the interests of institutional security and safety. We have also drawn support for such treatment from the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, and also from Section 28 of the Prisons Act and Rules 212 and 213 framed under the Prisons Act while interpreting the provisions of the Prisons Act and the rules framed thereunder, we have merely followed the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra. As there has been no fresh or new enunciation on any question of law or principle of law in deciding the issues involved in all these writ petitions, we are of opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Madhukar Bhagwan Jambhale vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 5 July, 1984

Mr. More fairly stated that the present procedure is inadequate in view of what is laid down in Sunil Batra's case. In that case various directions were given by the Supreme Court with a view to bring about reforms in the jail administration. These directions are to be found in paragraph 79 of the report by Krishna Iyer, J. Directions 3 to 5 are relevant so far as grievance procedure is concerned. These directions are :
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

Constitutions are not ephemeral enactments designed to meet passing occasions. These are, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "designed to approach immortality as nearly as human insti- tutions can approach it ..... ". In the application of a Constitutional limitation or inhibition, our interpretation cannot be only of 'what has been' but of 'what may be'. See the observations of this Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (supra). Where, therefore, in the interpreta- tion of the provisions of an Act, two constructions are possible, one which leads towards constitutionality of the legislation would be preferred to that which has the effect of destroying it. If we do not read the conferment of the power in the manner we have envisaged before, the power is liable to be struck down as bad. This, we say in spite of the argument by many including learned Solicitor General of India and Smt. Shyamla Pappu that in contractual obligations while institutions or organisations or authorities, who come within the arebit of Article 12 of the Constitution are free to contract on the basis of 'hire and fire' and the theory of the concept of unequal bargain and the power conferred subject to constitutional limitations would not be applica- ble. We are not impressed and not agreeable to accept that proposition at this stage of the evolution of the constitu- tional philosophy of master and servant framework or if you would like to call it employer or employee relationship. Therefore, these conferments of the powers on the employer must be judged on the constitutional peg and so judged without the limitations indicated aforesaid, the power is liable to be considered as arbitrary and struck down. Whenever a statute comes up for consideration, it must be remembered that it is not within human powers to ,foresee the manifold sets of facts which may arise, and, even if it were, it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity. The English language, and for that matter any language in use today, is not an instrument of mathematical precision. It has been said that our literature would have been much the poorer if it were.Leaving, how-
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 29 January, 2020

29. Though it is alleged that the petitioner has been in solitary confinement for 08 months and 09 days in violation of the principles of the Sunil Batra, the same is refuted by the respondents. In his affidavit, Director General, Prisons has denied the averment that the petitioner was kept in solitary confinement. It is stated that for security reasons, the petitioner was kept in one ward having multiple single rooms and barracks and the said single room had iron bars open to air and the same cannot be equated with solitary confinement/single cell. It is stated that the prisoner/petitioner who was kept in the single room comes out and mixes up with the other inmates in the prison on daily basis like other prisoners as per rules. Considering the averments in the affidavit filed by the Director General, Prisons, the contention of the petitioner that he has been kept in solitary confinement in violation of the principles of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others (1978) 4 SCC 494 cannot be countenanced. This cannot therefore be a ground for review of the order rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 21 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal (In Jail) vs Divisional Commissioner Nagpur ... on 13 September, 2019

23. There can be no cavil in saying that a society that believes in the worth of the individuals can have the quality of its belief ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 03:50:54 ::: 29 WP1046-18.odt judged, at least in part, by the quality of its prisons and services and recourse made available to the prisoners. Being in a civilized society organized with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure for every citizen a reasonably dignified life. If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing a crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life which constitute human dignity. For a prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality, though restricted by the fact of imprisonment. [See - Sunil Batra (2) v. State (UT of Delhi), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail.]
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 22 - M Pitale - Full Document

Suhail Rashid Bhat vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others on 25 October, 2019

"10. Equally meaningful is the import of Article 21 of the Constitution in the context of imprisonment for non-payment of debts. The high value of human dignity and the worth of the human person enshrined in Article 21, read with Article 14 and 19, obligates the State not to incarcerate except under law which is fair, just and reasonable in its procedural essence. Maneka Gandhi case [(1978) 1 SCC 248] as developed further in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [(1978) 4 SCC 494 :
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 164 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal (In Jail) vs Divisional Commissioner Nagpur ... on 14 March, 2019

22. There is another catch in the proviso to the amended ::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:07:28 ::: J-cwp1046.18.odt 17/21 provision of Rule 19(2). This proviso while prohibiting second or third or multiple paroles in one and the same year except in case of death of the nearest relative allows extension of parole already granted. Sub- clause (iii) to Clauses (A),(B) and (C) each lays down that the prisoner shall be eligible for a maximum of 45 days of parole in a year which can be extended upto 60 days once in 3 years only under exceptional circumstances. Conditions governing grant of extension of parole apart, what is important is the provision made for seeking extension upto 60 days in the same year. If a prisoner being on parole can seek extension of the period of parole leave, one does not understand why he could not avail of second parole in the same year if another grave contingency of similar nature as death occurs. This is an anomaly which affects in an unreasonable manner the basic human right of a prisoner to lead life with dignity as recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Navtej Singh Johar and others vs. Union of India (supra), Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (supra). The effect of this proviso is denial of a dignified treatment to an inmate in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner as well as giving of discriminatory treatment to an equally situated prisoner and according to us, this is the additional reason to say that the proviso so introduced by the notification dated 16 th April, 2018 apparently violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next