Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
A.Syed Hassan vs The Principal District Judge on 19 November, 2008 cites

All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993

In the 2nd All India Judges Association Case reported in 1992 (1) SCC 119, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the control of High Court over subordinate courts and attempting to ensure better individual conditions of service for subordinate judiciary throughout the country, not only made recommendation with regard to subordinate judicial service, but also to the other employees of the subordinate courts. Following were the observations of the Supreme Court about the control of the High Court over the subordinate courts :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 482 - P B Sawant - Full Document

C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors on 5 September, 1995

The heart of judicial independence is judicial individualism. The judiciary is not a disembodied abstraction. It is composed of individual men and women who work primarily on their own. (Vide C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee.) The Constitution of India has delineated distribution of sovereign power between the legislature, executive and judiciary. The judicial service is not service in the sense of employment. The Judges are not employees. As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the members of the Council of Ministers and the members of the legislature. It is an office of public trust and in a democracy, such as ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars of the State. What is intended to be conveyed is that the three essential functions of the State are entrusted to the three organs of the State and each one of them in turn represents the authority of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority, unlike the bureaucracy or the members of the other service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 68 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Ishwari Prasad Sharma And Anr. vs King-Emperor on 13 July, 1927

"58. Before we part, we must indicate with all the emphasis at our command that the system has to be saved as for a civilised society an enlightened independent judiciary is totally indispensable. The High Courts must take greater interest in the proper functioning of the subordinate judiciary. Inspection should not be a matter of casual attention. The Constitution has vested the control of the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 in the High Court as a whole and not its Chief Justice alone. Every Judge should, therefore, take adequate interest in the institution which is placed under the control of the High Court. We may point out that is what Lord Atkins said in Debi Prasad Sharma v. King Emperor.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next