Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.34 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Cricket Association Of Bihar . on 29 September, 2015
In Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket
Association of Bihar & Ors. - [(2015) 3 SCC 251] the Supreme
Court found that although the BCCI would not answer to the
description of "State" within the meaning of that term under Article 12
of the Constitution of India, it would nevertheless be amenable to the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 thereof, on account of the public
duties discharged by it that included controlling the activities of players
and others involved in the game of cricket.
Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
If that public duty can be tested for its accountability and
legitimacy in judicial proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, as settled through the decisions in Zee Telefilms Ltd (supra)
and BCCI (supra) then surely that duty should also adhere to the
standards prescribed under the PC Act. To assume otherwise would be
an affront to the concept of good governance that is an integral aspect
of the rule of law which, in turn, is recognised as a basic feature of our
Constitution.
Sukhdev Singh & Ors vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi And ... on 21 February, 1975
It was in this vein that Mathew, J. in Sukhdev & Ors v. Bhagatram
Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr. - [(1975) 1 SCC 421] famously
observed that the governing power wherever situated must be subject
to constitutional limitations. Over the years, this idea has only been
reinforced in our constitutional jurisprudence through the shift to a
culture of justification where citizens are now seen entitled to seek
justification for state action instead of merely looking to whether the
action complained of was taken by a person who had the legal authority
to act. Conceptually, public duty is now seen as a constitutional trust
reposed in all holders of public power and it is through the discipline of
public accountability that the exercise of public power retains its
legitimacy.
Aman Bhatia vs State(Gnct Of Delhi) on 26 September, 2014
Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah - [(2020) 20 SCC 360]; Aman
Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) - [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013]].
The State Of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah on 27 April, 2020
6. In the writ appeals before us, preferred by the State of Kerala
and the de facto complainants, the main contention urged is with
regard to the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge while
coming to the conclusion that the office bearers of the Kerala Cricket
Association are not public servants within the meaning of the phrase
under the PC Act. They point out that the distinction drawn by the
learned Single Judge between a public duty mandated by the positive
law or executive instructions of the State and a public duty that is not,
was wholly irrelevant in the context of the PC Act that did not make a
distinction between various forms of public duty and was enacted with
the avowed object of removing corruption from public service. Reliance
is placed on the judgments in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai
Kanjibhai Shah - [(2020) 20 SCC 360]; Aman Bhatia v. State
(GNCT of Delhi) - [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013]; Board of Control
for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors. -
Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994
They also point out that the definition of 'public duty' under the PC act
is vague and hence cannot be the basis for fastening a penal liability on
persons under the PC Act. They rely on the decisions in Kartar Singh
v. State of Punjab - [(1994) 3 SCC 569]; Tolaram Relumal v. State
of Bombay - [(1954) 1 SCC 961]; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh
Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya - [(1990) 4 SCC 76]; State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Vengu Reddy - [(2002) 7 SCC 631] and
Pannyan Raveendran v. Shamnad - [2023 (3) KHC 124] in support
of the said contention. Alternatively, they would contend that, even if it
is found that the office bearers of the Kerala Cricket Association can be
"public servants" for the purposes of the PC Act, the proceedings
initiated against them would nevertheless have to be quashed since the
averments in the complaints before the Special Courts did not make out
an offence against them. It is pointed out that the learned Single Judge
did not go into this aspect only because he had found the proceedings
to be vitiated on the ground that the writ petitioners were not public
servants within the meaning of the term under the PC Act.