Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 180 (0.04 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) vs Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth And Anr. on 19 September, 1977

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2015

The Chief Justice, in turn, must collect necessary information through responsible channels or directly, acquaint himself with the requisite data, deliberate on the information he possesses and proceed in the interests of the administration of justice to give the President such counsel of action as he thinks will further the public interest, especially the cause of the justice system…" It was further concluded, that the above observation in the Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth case 5 would apply with equal force to determine the scope and meaning of the term “consultation” within the 5 (1977) 4 SCC 193 33 meaning of Articles 124(2) and 217(1). Each of the constitutional functionaries, required to be consulted under these two Articles, must have for his consideration, full and identical facts bearing upon appointment or non-appointment of the person concerned, and the opinion of each of them taken on identical material, must be considered by the Central Government, before it takes a decision, whether or not to appoint the person concerned as a Judge. It was open to the Central Government to take its own decision, in regard to the appointment or non-appointment of a Judge to a High Court or the Supreme Court, after taking into account and giving due weight to, the opinions expressed. It was also observed, that the only ground on which such a decision could be assailed was, that the action was based on mala fides or irrelevant considerations. In case of a difference of opinion amongst the constitutional functionaries, who were to be consulted, it was felt, that it was for the Central Government to decide, whose opinion should be accepted. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, that in the consultative process, primacy should be that of the Chief Justice of India, since he was the head of the Indian judiciary and pater familias of the judicial fraternity, was rejected for the reason, that each of the constitutional functionaries was entitled to equal weightage. With reference to appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court, it was held, that the Chief Justice of India was required to be consulted, but the Central Government was not bound to act in accordance with the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, even though, his opinion was entitled to 34 great weight. It was therefore held, that the ultimate power of appointment, rested with the Central Government (paragraph
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 432 - Cited by 0 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Har Govind Pant vs Chancellor, University Of Rajasthan ... on 8 November, 1977

In Union of India v. Sankalchand Himmatlal Sheth, (AIR 1977 SC 2328) (supra), Bhagwati J. observed that a High Court Judge has no employer. He occupies a high constitutional office, which is co-ordinate with the executive and the legislature. In the same judgment it has also been observed that the High Court constituted of the Chief Justice and other Judges exercises the judicial powers of the State and is coordinate in position and status with the Governor aided and advised by the Council of Ministers, who exercise the executive powers. On the parity of reasoning, it can also be said that the appointment of a person as a Governor for a State by the President and holding of his office during the pleasure of the President is only a mode of appointment and the holder of this constitutional office cannot be termed to be the employee under the Central Government. He is the creature of the Constitution clothed with functions and obligations created by it. He is bound by the oath prescribed under Article 159 to 'preserve-, project and defend the Constitution and the law'. This oath casts a Constitutional obligation in him. It is his duty to see that the Government of the State is carried on in accordance with the Constitution. In the discharge of his duty, he has to exercise his influence and persuasion, It is also the duty of the Centre to ensure that the Government of the State is carried on in accordance with the Constitution, and in order to enable the Centre to perform its duty, the Governor is obliged to inform the Centre about matters relevant to this Constitutional obligation. In the discharge of his functions, the Governor derives his authority from the Constitution alone.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 111 - Cited by 7 - A P Sen - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 25 September, 2014

775. It was also stated that the expression ‘obtain’ in the circular has the element of coercion and a consent ceases to be consent if it is obtained under coercion. It was said that consent and coercion go ill together because forced assent would not be consent in the eye of law. It was said that the threat implicit in the circular becomes evident because the Chief Minister, the strong arm of the executive is being asked to obtain consent. If every little thing is looked upon with suspicion and as an attack on the independence of judiciary, it becomes absolutely misleading. Law Minister, if he writes directly to the Chief Justice or the Judge concerned, propriety of the action may be open to question. Chandrachud, J., has warned in Sheth case (supra) that the executive cannot and ought not to establish rapport with Judges (SCR p. 456 CD : SCC p. 230, para 43). Taking this direction in its letter and spirit, the Law Minister wrote to the Chief Ministers. The Chief Minister in turn was bound to approach the Chief Justice. This is also known to be a proper communication channel with Judges of High Court. In this context the expression ‘obtain’ would only mean request the Judge to give consent if he so desires. If he gives the consent, well and good, and if does not give, no evil consequences are likely to ensue. I am not impressed by the submission of the learned Attorney-General that one who gives consent may have some advantage over the one who does not. I do not see any remote advantage and if any such advantage is given and if charge of victimisation is made out by the Judge not giving consent, the arm of judicial review is strong enough to rectify the executive error.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 355 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 25 September, 2014

775. It was also stated that the expression ‘obtain’ in the circular has the element of coercion and a consent ceases to be consent if it is obtained under coercion. It was said that consent and coercion go ill together because forced assent would not be consent in the eye of law. It was said that the threat implicit in the circular becomes evident because the Chief Minister, the strong arm of the executive is being asked to obtain consent. If every little thing is looked upon with suspicion and as an attack on the independence of judiciary, it becomes absolutely misleading. Law Minister, if he writes directly to the Chief Justice or the Judge concerned, propriety of the action may be open to question. Chandrachud, J., has warned in Sheth case (supra) that the executive cannot and ought not to establish rapport with Judges (SCR p. 456 CD : SCC p. 230, para 43). Taking this direction in its letter and spirit, the Law Minister wrote to the Chief Ministers. The Chief Minister in turn was bound to approach the Chief Justice. This is also known to be a proper communication channel with Judges of High Court. In this context the expression ‘obtain’ would only mean request the Judge to give consent if he so desires. If he gives the consent, well and good, and if does not give, no evil consequences are likely to ensue. I am not impressed by the submission of the learned Attorney-General that one who gives consent may have some advantage over the one who does not. I do not see any remote advantage and if any such advantage is given and if charge of victimisation is made out by the Judge not giving consent, the arm of judicial review is strong enough to rectify the executive error.
Supreme Court of India Cites 355 - Cited by 330 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Vilas S/O Rangrao Mahalle vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2013

53. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Sankalchand ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:49:31 ::: wp201.12 65 Himatlal Sheth & Anr. (supra), to point out various facets of principles of consultation. The said judgment considers all provisions of Article 222(1) of the Constitution of India and in paras 38 & 39 concludes that deliberation is quintessence of consultation.
Bombay High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 November, 2016

Coming to the twin questions of law, posed at the outset, this Court is of the considered opinion that under the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noticed hereinabove, abovesaid provisions of law contained in the Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its constitution bench judgment in Dr. Raghukul Tilaks' case (supra), Justice Chandrashekaraiah's case (supra), Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth's case (supra), Namit Sharma's case (supra), Division Bench of Patna High Court in Mithilesh Kumar Singh's case (supra) and Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Sreenivasan Vanugopalan's case (supra), answer to both the questions is and has to be in the negative. It is held that neither the appointment of second respondent, as Lokayukta for the State of Haryana, amounts to "employment" nor the office of Lokayukta, Haryana, comes "under the Government of State of Haryana" and as a result 48 of 56 ::: Downloaded on - 19-11-2016 17:15:16 ::: Civil Writ Petition No. 17566 of 2016 49 thereof, appointment of second respondent, as Lokayukta for the State of Haryana, would not be violative of Section 11 of the AFT Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - R S Malik - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next