Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)

E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973

"56. Now, the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14 : what is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article ? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach._ No attempt should be made to truncate its all embracing scope and meaning for, to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned Within traditional and doctrinaire limits. We must reiterate here what was pointed out by the majority in E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another (1) namely, that "from a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14". Article 14 strikes, at arbi- trariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the best of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be "'right and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. How far natural justice is air essential element of procedure established by law .
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1821 - A N Ray - Full Document

Chandu @ Chandra Prakash @ Manjeet Singh ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 February, 2021

In the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and Another v. Kharak Singh and Another, R.K.Singh v. State of U.P. and Others and recently and in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others, Supreme Court has considered the issue of giving consequential benefits to an employee who had been wholly illegally denied promotion and had been made junior to his juniors in the establishment for the fault of authorities.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Siddharth - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 2015

In the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and Another v. Kharak Singh and Another, R.K.Singh v. State of U.P. and Others and recently and in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others, Supreme Court has considered the issue of giving consequential benefits to an employee who had been wholly illegally denied promotion and had been made junior to his juniors in the establishment for the fault of authorities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 79 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next