Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 August, 1997

Tarak Singh And Ors. vs Jyoti Basu And Anr. on 5 February, 1999

47. He further relied upon the judgments reported in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 382 and submitted that the Supreme Court has accepted the guidelines forwarded by the Attorney-General in the said matter and on a closed scrutiny of the norms it is clear that the element of personal evaluation has been allowed to remain. He further submitted that the Supreme Court did not wish to eliminate exercise of discretion by the appropriate authority but was merely content to minimise the area of discretion.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Common Cause, A Registered Society vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 1999

"the applicant has no regular income to support herself and her family", "the applicant is an educated lady and belongs to Scheduled Tribe community", "the applicant is an uneducated, unemployed Scheduled Tribe youth without regular source of livelihood", "the applicant is a housewife whose family is facing difficult financial circumstances" etc. etc. There would be literally millions of people in the country having these circumstances or worse. There is no justification whatsoever to pick up these persons except that they happen to have won the favour of the Minister on mala fide considerations. None of these cases fall within the categories placed before this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India but even if we assume for argument sake that these cases fall in some of those or similar guidelines the exercise of discretion was wholly arbitrary. Such a discretionary power which is capable of being exercised arbitrarily is not permitted by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While Article 14 permits a reasonable classification having a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, it does not permit the power to pick and choose arbitrarily out of several persons falling in the same category."
Supreme Court of India Cites 105 - Cited by 756 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Suzuki Motor Corporation vs Union Of India on 22 September, 1997

(20) Similar news items have appeared in other newspapers as well as on television. These are most unfortunate when the proceedings have been pending in Court. The Government must realise that it is dealing with such situations on behalf of the country as well as the people. The matters of public importance may have to be ratified by the Parliament which is supreme and is representative of people. There cannot be any absolute discretion with one individual. The concept of "discretion" has been defined by a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Others . Paragraph 3 from the judgment reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1