Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (7.19 seconds)
Documents citing S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994

Aditya Dayanand Tare vs Union Of India on 11 January, 2019

As mentioned above, in Bagleswar's case (AIR 1966 SC 875) (supra) though there was no direct evidence, indirect evidence in, form of a number of circumstances was there which was considered by the University as sufficient and when the action was quashed by the High Court, the Supreme Court rightly set aside the order of the High Court observing that it was for the authorities to consider the evidence and the High Court was not iustified in interfering with the said order. The High Court was not a court of appeal and cannot enter into sufficiency, adequacy. or otherwise of the evidence before the authority. At the same time, however, it should not happen that a student is punished and his career is jeopardised only on the basis of suspicions, surmises and conjectures without there being any evidence worth the name. In my opinion, in this case there is no evidence whatsoever which has some probative value in the eye of law and merely on the basis of suspicion that the impugned action is taken by the Page 47 of 59 C/SCA/6537/2018 CAV JUDGMENT respondent Board which is arbitrary, irrational, perverse and no reasonable man in the facts and circumstances of the case would reach to that conclusion and, therefore, it is required to be interfered with in the exercise of the powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. "
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2022

141. The doctrine of basic structure contemplates that there are certain parts or aspects of the Constitution including Article 15, Article 21 read with Article 14 and 19 which constitute the core values which if allowed to be abrogated would change completely the nature of the Constitution. Exclusion of fundamental rights would result in nullification of the basic structure 57 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, (hereinafter "S.R. Bommai").
Supreme Court of India Cites 281 - Cited by 5 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Joshi Madhavi vs Union Of India on 13 September, 2022

In a situation as the one arising in the above context, it must be stated, that by virtue of such status available with the Central Government possessing the Executive Power, having regard to the pronouncement of the larger Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. [Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441] 19 and S.R. Bommai [S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1] , the Executive Power of the Centre should prevail over the State as possessing higher constitutional power specifically adorned on the Central Government under Article 73(1)(a).
Telangana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - L Kanneganti - Full Document

V. Kunhabdulla And Anr. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 3 August, 2000

But this immunity from attack cannot apply where the challenge is not, that the satisfaction is improper or unjustifled but that there is no satisfaction at all, in such a case, it is not satisfaction arrived by the Election Comi-mission which is challenged but the exist-ence of the satisfaction-itself (See in this connection S.R. Bommal v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 : (AIR 1994 SC 1918)), We may wind up the discussion on this aspect by observing that the power vested in the High Court to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all Courts, Tribunals and public bodies exercising public law powers within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is because a situation where the High Court divested of all other judicial functions apart from that of Constitutional interpretation, is equally to be avoided. The power of judicial review is basic Structure of the Constitution (of).
Kerala High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

State Of J And K And Ors. vs Mohammad Shafi Bhat And Ors. on 5 September, 2003

"An order passed under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is subject to judicial review and its validity can be examined by the Court on the ground that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is vitiated by mala fides or is based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds within the limits laid down in AIR 1994 SC 1918."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - P Kohli - Full Document

People'S Union For Civil Liberties vs Union Of India And Anr on 5 February, 1997

13. The main criticism against reading such conventions and covenants into national laws is one pointed out by Mason, C.J. himself, viz., the ratification of these conventions and covenants is done, in most of the countries by the Executive acting alone and that the prerogative of making the law is that of Parliament alone; unless Parliament legislates, no law can come into existence. It is not clear whether our Parliament has approved the action of the Government of India ratifying the said 1966 Covenant. Indeed, it appears that at the time of ratification of the said Covenant in 1979, the Government of India had made a specific reservation to the effect that the Indian legal system does not recognize a right to compensation for victims of unlawful arrest or detention. This reservation has, of course, been held to be of little relevance now in view of the decision Nilabati Behera [ 1993 (2) SCC 746 : 1993 SCC(Cri) 527]. [See page 313, para 43 SCC(p) 438, para 42) in D. K. Basu [ 1997 (1) SCC 416 : 1997 SCC(Cri) 92 : (1996) 9 Scale 298].] Assuming that it has, the question may yet arise whether such approval can be equated to legislation and invests the Covenant with the sanctity of a law made by Parliament. As pointed out by this Court in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India [ 1994 (3) SCC 1 ], every action of Parliament cannot be equated to legislation. Legislation is no doubt the main function of Parliament but it also performs many other functions all of which do not amount to legislation. In our opinion, this aspect requires deeper scrutiny than has been possible in this case. For the present, it would suffice to state the provisions of the covenant, which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, can certainly be relied upon by courts as facets of those fundamental rights and hence, enforceable as such. So far as multilateral treaties are concerned, the law is, of course, different - and definite.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 27 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Resident Of vs Union Of India Through on 25 August, 2015

10. Insofar as the first of the issues is concerned, this has already been challenged by the applicant in OA No.1334/2014, which has been decided on 20.08.2015 against the applicant. While deciding the matter, this Tribunal went in depth into the provisions of Articles 53, 74 & 77 of the Constitution relating to the executive powers of the State. Relying upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India [1994(3) SCC 1] and Shamsher Singh Vs. Union of India [AIR 1974 SC 2192], the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the Council of Ministers, the Ministers and the individual officials exercise the executive powers of the President and that it was not mandatory for the respondent Ministry to consult the DOPT before introducing a third tier of appraisal in form of an Accepting Authority. For the sake of clarity, relevant portion of the decision in OA No.1334/2014 is being extracted as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

For my part, I would like to examine the question in greater detail before answering the question. There are conflicting views of this Court on this proposition.[197] In my opinion, such an enquiry is not required in this case in view of the majority decision that the AMENDMENT is unsustainable. Some of the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on S.R. Bommai case as a justification for the invocation of the doctrine of basic structure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 444 - Cited by 284 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Kabir Din vs State Of J&K; And Others on 14 November, 2017

It has been held by the Supreme Court in S.R.Bommai v Union of India, 1994 (3) SCC 1, that even in the matter of exercise of power under Article 356 of the Constitution, the satisfaction of the President, while undoubtedly subjective, is not beyond judicial scrutiny of the courts under Article 32 or Article 226, as the case may be. The parameters of judicial review enunciated by the Supreme Court in S. R. Bommai's case (supra) have been held applicable in A. K. Kaul v. Union of India, 1995 (4) SCC73, to a matter arising under proviso (c) to Article 311 (2). A reading of clauses (b) and (c) of the second proviso would establish that, if at all, the power under clause (b) is more circumscribed than the power under clause (c).
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T Rabstan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next