Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.34 seconds)Article 323B in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 213 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Government of India Act, 1935
Bhagat Singh vs Emperor on 27 February, 1931
26. In this case when the question of the satisfaction of the President as to the existence of the circumstances is insulated from justiciability of the court and when it is found in the Statement of Objects of the Ordinance that the President is satisfied it shall be presumed prima facie, of course, that the President has validly exercised his legislative power. This could have been unconstitutional had there been no such satisfaction being recorded. Therefore, I hold prima facie that the President has validly exercised under Article 123 of the Constitution of India unless it is established that there is no material to reach such satisfaction. There are other old decisions rendered by the Privy Council reported in Bhagat Singh v. Emperor [1931] 58 IA 169, at page 171 ; Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sarma [1945] 72 IA 57, at page 66 of Lakhi Narayan Das v. Province of Bihar, AIR 1950 FC 59. The decision rendered by the Privy Council while dealing with the corresponding provision of the Government of India Act, 1915, and the Government of India Act, 1935, in those cases there Privy Council held that the satisfaction of the Governor General and the Governor as the case may be are not justiciable. Similarly the Federal Court also held on the same lines.
Emperor vs Benoari Lal Sarma on 6 November, 1944
26. In this case when the question of the satisfaction of the President as to the existence of the circumstances is insulated from justiciability of the court and when it is found in the Statement of Objects of the Ordinance that the President is satisfied it shall be presumed prima facie, of course, that the President has validly exercised his legislative power. This could have been unconstitutional had there been no such satisfaction being recorded. Therefore, I hold prima facie that the President has validly exercised under Article 123 of the Constitution of India unless it is established that there is no material to reach such satisfaction. There are other old decisions rendered by the Privy Council reported in Bhagat Singh v. Emperor [1931] 58 IA 169, at page 171 ; Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sarma [1945] 72 IA 57, at page 66 of Lakhi Narayan Das v. Province of Bihar, AIR 1950 FC 59. The decision rendered by the Privy Council while dealing with the corresponding provision of the Government of India Act, 1915, and the Government of India Act, 1935, in those cases there Privy Council held that the satisfaction of the Governor General and the Governor as the case may be are not justiciable. Similarly the Federal Court also held on the same lines.
Lakhi Narayan Das And Ors. vs The Province Of Bihar on 30 March, 1950
26. In this case when the question of the satisfaction of the President as to the existence of the circumstances is insulated from justiciability of the court and when it is found in the Statement of Objects of the Ordinance that the President is satisfied it shall be presumed prima facie, of course, that the President has validly exercised his legislative power. This could have been unconstitutional had there been no such satisfaction being recorded. Therefore, I hold prima facie that the President has validly exercised under Article 123 of the Constitution of India unless it is established that there is no material to reach such satisfaction. There are other old decisions rendered by the Privy Council reported in Bhagat Singh v. Emperor [1931] 58 IA 169, at page 171 ; Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sarma [1945] 72 IA 57, at page 66 of Lakhi Narayan Das v. Province of Bihar, AIR 1950 FC 59. The decision rendered by the Privy Council while dealing with the corresponding provision of the Government of India Act, 1915, and the Government of India Act, 1935, in those cases there Privy Council held that the satisfaction of the Governor General and the Governor as the case may be are not justiciable. Similarly the Federal Court also held on the same lines.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 323A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth And Anr. on 19 September, 1977
19. Dr. Pal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, and in my view this judgment is also not helpful in this case, as the said decision was rendered while dealing with a case of transfer of a High Court judge vis-a-vis independence of the judiciary. Here at this stage it is early to say that the independence of the judiciary is at stake.