Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.34 seconds)Article 163 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Dharmalingam vs His Excellency Governor Of The State Of ... on 26 February, 1988
30. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Sanghi, who appeared on behalf of the Governor of Goa stated that he adopts the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Ashok Dessai and, in addition, submitted that the petition is not maintainable since the Governor is not answerable to any Court in respect of exercise and performance of powers and duties of his Office or for any act done or purported to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties and in respect of such actions the aggrieved part is not left without any remedy but appropriate proceedings against the Government of a State can be brought by the aggrieved person. After placing reliance on Article 163(2) of the Constitution he has also pointed out that orders passed in his discretion by the Governor are not only final
but the validity of anything done by the Governor cannot be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion. According to him, no fetters can be put on the discretion of the Governor on the choice and dismissal of the Chief Minister and if the choice is not correct there are inbuilt safeguards like floor test. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in S. Dharmalingam v. His Excellency Governor of State of Tamil Nadu (supra) wherein it was held that the immunity of the Governor with regard to action pertaining to his sole discretion is absolute and beyond the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Article 164 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mahabir Prasad Sharma vs Prafulla Chandra Ghose And Ors. on 6 February, 1968
41. The Calcutta High Court in Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose and others (supra), while dealing with the power of Governor to appoint the Chief Minister has laid down that the Governor in making the appointment of the Chief Minister under Article 164(1) of the Constitution acts in his sole discretion and the exercise of his discretion by the Governor cannot be called in question in writ proceedings in the High Court. It has been further laid down therein that if a Council of Ministers refuses to vacate the Office of Ministers, even after a motion of no confidence has been passed against it in the Legislative Assembly of the State, it will then be for the Governor to withdraw the pleasure during which the Council of Ministers hold office.
P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State(Cbi/Spe) on 17 April, 1998
In further reply it was urged by learned Senior Counsel Shri Sanghi that in P. V. Narashimha Rao v. State (supra) the Apex Court has held that the alleged bribe takers are entitled to immunity as the alleged conspiracy and acceptance of bribe being 'in respect' or had nexus with vote against no confidence motion. But the M.Ps. who despite having received the bribes pursuant to the conspiracy had abstained from voting, would not be entitled to such immunity since protection under Article 105(2) must relate to vote actually given. According to him, this ruling even if attracted, would not in any manner help the petitioner.
S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994
Even in such cases, the Apex Court has held in Bommai's case (supra) that only limited judicial review is permissible on grounds of mala fides illegality and irrationality. According to the learned Senior Counsel the impugned orders of dismissal of the petitioner and appointment of respondent No. 3 fall within the area of exclusive discretion of the Governor which are not subject to judicial review in view of Article 361 as well as under Article 163(2) of the Constitution and the immunity thereunder in respect of actions within the sole discretion of the Governor is absolute. He further submitted that the subjective discretion exercised by the Governor is also not justiciable for the want of judicially manageable standards. The petition should, therefore be dismissed as not maintainable.
State Of Punjab vs Sat Pal Dang & Ors on 30 July, 1968
On the question prorogation of the House of the Governor, reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Satya Pal Dang, .
A.K. Kaul & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 19 April, 1995
Reliance was also placed by him on A.K. Kaul and another v. Union of India and another, . In support of his submission that the matter in question would not be justiciable due to want of judicially manageable standards.
K.A. Mathialagan And Ors. vs The Governor Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 11 December, 1972
42. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in K.A. Mathialagan v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu (supra), after reviewing the case law has laid down that the exception in Article 163(1) has reference only to those functions in which the Governor is expressly required to use his own discretion. The Full Bench has further laid down that though the Governor cannot be personally, as a party or otherwise, called upon to answer a charge of bad faith with reference to his official act, the validity of his act is open to challenge on that ground in the Court in view of second proviso to Article 361(1) of the Constitution. These observations were made by the Full Bench while dealing with a case of prorogation of the State Assembly wherein mala fides were attributed against the Governor while ordering prorogation of the State Assembly. It was pointed out that in no judgment it has been held that where the bona fides of the Governor are questioned he can personally be called to enter his defence. Accordingly, the Full Bench came to the conclusion that the immunity extends to cases where bona fides are questioned or male fides are alleged. In this connection it was observed as under:--