Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.43 seconds)
Dr. B. Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 March, 2004 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Prabhu on 3 November, 1993

Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC 481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., (AIR 1994 SC 2151). No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 273 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs Mr. K. Parasaran & Ors on 13 August, 1996

(See Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. Self styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst of public at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep themselves busy and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of court proceedings. They must really inspire confidence in Courts and among the public, failing which such litigation should be axed with heavy hand and dire consequences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 261 - K T Thomas - Full Document

Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998

As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations, whereas only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts at times are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copters, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases show proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the Court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 445 - Full Document

S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981

It would be proper to take note of very significant observations made in the Second Judges' case about the growing tendency of needless intrusion by strangers and busybodies in the functioning of the judiciary under the garb of public interest litigation, in spite of the caution in S.P. Gupta's case (supra). The note of caution has yielded no fruitful result and on the contrary these busybodies continue to make reckless allegations and vitriolic statements against Judges and persons whose names are under consideration for judgeship. Therefore, it has become imperative to take stern actions against these persons. It is not the ipse dixit of any individual to say as to whether the recommended person is fit for appointment, by making wide allegations which has become common these days and have resulted in delaying appointment of Judges, though large number of vacancies exist in different High Courts. All possible care and caution is exercised before appointment of a Judge is made. It is true that no system is infallible, but at the same time the sinister design of people intended to thwart prospects of a person likely to be appointed as a Judge has to be nipped at the bud. The petitioner has not shown any material to show that he is really interested in the welfare of the judicial system or the institution of the judiciary. As indicated above, he appears to be a busy person seeking publicity and a person who has no genuine concern for the institution, if such type of petitions are permitted to be entertained it will cause immense damage to the system itself. High sounding words used in the petition about the desirability of a transparent judicial system cannot in our view turn a mis-conceived petition filed with oblique motives to be treated as a public interest litigation. This petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs and we direct so. The petition though deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- hoping that the petitioner would mend his ways and would not hazard such vexatious litigations in future dismiss the same with costs of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioner shall deposit in the Registry of this Court within 6 weeks from today. If deposit is made it shall be remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. In case the cost is not deposited within the time stipulated, the Registry shall forward this order to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the High Court shall have it recovered by coercive means of recovery and remit the same to this Court, which on receipt shall be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 296 - Cited by 614 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 November, 2003

(SCC p.335, para 61) These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal (2003 (8) Supreme 299) Procedure for appointment of a Judge is provided in Article 217 of the Constitution. The process is an elaborate one and involves the views of the collegium of the Court. Where a particular person is to be appointed as a Judge, the modalities and procedures to be adopted have been elaborately dealt with in Special Reference No.1 of 1998, Re: (1998 (7) SCC 739). The scope of judicial review has been specifically delienated, limiting it to want of consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or lack or any condition of eligibility and not on any other ground including that of bias which is in any case is excluded by the element of plurality in the process of decision-making.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 902 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next