Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.67 seconds)Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994
This Court has held that the satisfaction of the President can be examined within the limits laid down in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 : (1994 AIR SCW 2946). The order of the President can be examined to ascertain whether it is vitiated either by mala fides or is based on wholly extraneous and/ or irrelevant grounds. The Court, however, cannot sit in appeal over the order, or substitute its own satisfaction for the satisfaction of the President. So long as there is material before the President which is relevant for arriving at his satisfaction as to action being taken under Clause (c) to the second proviso to Article 311 (2), the Court would be bound by the order so passed. This Court has enumerated the scope of judicial review of the President's satisfaction for passing an order under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2). The Court has said, (1) that the order would be open to challenge on the ground of mala fides or being based wholly on extraneous and/or irrelevant grounds' (2) even if some of the material on which the action is taken is found to be irrelevant the Court would still not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action; (3) the truth or correctness of the material cannot be questioned by the Court nor will it go into the adequacy of the material and it will also not substitute its opinion for that of the President; (4) the ground of mala fides takes in, inter alia, situations where the proclamation is found to be a clear case of abuse of power or what is sometimes called fraud on power; (5) the Court will not lightly presume abuse or misuse of power and will make allowance for the fact that the President and the Council of Ministers are the best judge of the situation and that they are also in possession of information and material and Constitution has trusted their judgment in the matter; (6) this does not mean that the President and the Council of Ministers are the final arbiters in the matter or that their opinion is conclusive.
A.K. Kaul & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 19 April, 1995
In the case of A. K. Kaul v. Union of India (1995 AIR SCW 2075) (supra) this Court has examined the extent of judicial review permissible in respect of an order of dismissal passed under second proviso Clause (c) of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.
N. Rajarathinam vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 6 September, 1996
25. It is now well-settled that the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in a departmental proceeding. [See Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Others (1997) 2 SCC 699; Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Others (2003) 3 SCC 583; and N. Rajarathinam v. State of T.N. and Another _ (1996) 10 SCC 371].
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975
In State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557], this Court held :