Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.65 seconds)Section 24 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
In our opinion, two recent decisions in M/s Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons,
(supra) and Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors.,(supra) also lead in the same
direction without saying so in clear terms. This appears to be also the
trend of the recent English decisions. It is in consonance with our
commitment to openness which implies scrutiny of every State action to
provide an effective check against arbitrariness and abuse of power. We
would much rather be wrong in saying so rather than be wrong in not saying
so. Non-arbitrariness, being a necessary concomitant of the rule of law, it
is imperative that all actions of every public functionary, in whatever
sphere, must be guided by reason and not humour, whim, caprice or personal
predilections of the persons entrusted with the task on behalf of the State
and exercise of all power must be for public good instead of being an abuse
of the power.”
(emphasis supplied)
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
28. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489; Kasturi Lal
Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1980) 4 SCC 1; Dwarkadas
Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (1989) 3 SCC
293 and Mahabir Auto Stores and Others v. Indian Oil Corporation and others
(1990) 3 SCC 752, this Court held that the power of judicial review and the
sweep of Article 14 was wide enough to take within its fold the impugned
circular issued by the State in exercise of its executive powers
irrespective of the precise nature of appointment of the Government Counsel
in the districts or the rights, contractual or statutory, which the
appointees may have. This Court reiterated the well settled principle that
State action can survive only if it does not suffer from the vice of
arbitrariness which is the very essence of Article 14 of the Constitution
and Rule of law. This Court observed :
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
In Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. 1991 (1) SCC 212, which
happens to be the first of these decisions, this Court had an occasion to
examine whether Government Counsel in the districts are holders of an
‘office or post’ or such appointments are no more than professional
engagements like the one between a private client and his lawyer. That case
arose out of a challenge mounted by Government Counsel who were engaged
throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh to handle civil, revenue or criminal
cases and whose services were en masse terminated by the State only to be
replaced by fresh appointments on the basis of a new panel prepared for
that purpose and communicated to the District Magistrates concerned.
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another on 9 May, 1980
28. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489; Kasturi Lal
Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1980) 4 SCC 1; Dwarkadas
Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (1989) 3 SCC
293 and Mahabir Auto Stores and Others v. Indian Oil Corporation and others
(1990) 3 SCC 752, this Court held that the power of judicial review and the
sweep of Article 14 was wide enough to take within its fold the impugned
circular issued by the State in exercise of its executive powers
irrespective of the precise nature of appointment of the Government Counsel
in the districts or the rights, contractual or statutory, which the
appointees may have. This Court reiterated the well settled principle that
State action can survive only if it does not suffer from the vice of
arbitrariness which is the very essence of Article 14 of the Constitution
and Rule of law. This Court observed :
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
In S G Jaisinghani v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427, this Court
held that absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of “Rule of
Law” upon which rests our Constitutional system. This Court ruled that in a
system governed by rule of law, any discretion conferred upon the executive
authorities must be confined within clearly defined limits.
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004
In State of U.P. and Anr. v Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 a three-Judge
Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with somewhat similar question
that arose once again in relation to appointment of government lawyers in
the State of U.P. This Court reviewed the decisions earlier delivered and
ruled that public interest would be safeguarded only when good and
competent counsel are appointed by the State. No such appointments should,
declared this Court, be made for pursuing a political purpose or for giving
some undue advantage to any particular section. The State should replace
an efficient, honest and competent lawyer only when it is in a position to
appoint a more competent lawyer in his place, observed this Court. The
following passage is apposite in this regard: