Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)

Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982

Collector, Kandhamal, (2025) 11 OHC CK 0814 has observed that Section 24 of the Act enacts a piece of law relating to election. It hardly needs to be stated that election law is what the statute says it to be and that common law principles & doctrines have to be parked miles away, unless they are incorporated in the statute itself. This view gains support from the Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 430 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Dhayabhai vs Bambhaniya on 12 March, 2012

The last submission of learned Senior Advocate that Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, as expansively construed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, provides for special provisions being made for the protection of women and children, is true. However, his further submission that the appellant being a lady candidate occupying the Office of Sarpanch, which is reserved for woman, could not be removed casually by passing resolution of the kind on No Confidence Motion, is liable to be rejected. There is no connection between Article 15(3) of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Act. This Section does not differentiate the Sarpanchs on the ground of gender when it Page 10 of 11 comes to removal on No Confidence Motion. Women are a class apart and their services are most valuable to the society, cannot be disputed. However, that has no relevance in the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act and its operation. The Gujurat High Court in Dhayabhai v. Bambhaniya, (2012) 2 GLR 1540 (Guj) has observed as under:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document
1