Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.34 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Quamarul Islam vs S.K. Kanta And Ors on 21 January, 1994
10.In Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K.Kanta reported in 1994 (1) SCC
452, the question as to whether mere production of the copy of the
newspaper be treated as proof of the report of the speech (news item)
contained therein came up for consideration. The Apex Court at Paragraph
48 of the judgment held that,
"48.Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the
contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to
be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled.
Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the
report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the
http://www.judis.nic.in newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to
11
proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best
secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence
without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The
learned trial Judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly 'proved'
only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election
petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the
election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the
correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as
published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony
and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the
reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements,
which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since, the maker of
the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the
court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in
the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by
the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the
advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the
messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove
the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages
or the publication of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is
no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that
the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being,
whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that
the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or
published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of
his election agent."
B.R. Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 September, 1989
12.In yet another decision in Dr.B.Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI)
and others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 363 dealing with a public interest
litigation, challenging the propriety of the third respondent therein for
being considered for appointment as a Judge, the Supreme Court while
expressing its anguish found that:
Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd vs Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors on 6 December, 2007
The Court has to act
ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome
interlopers impersonating as public spirited holy men. They masquerade as
crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico,
though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
Reference can be made to the recent decision of the Apex Court in
Holicow Pictures Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and others
reported in 2008 (1) CTC 711 (Para 20)."
Kerala State Represented By vs Lekshmi Amma Kutty Amma on 22 January, 2010
In State of Kerala v. A.Lakshmi Kutty reported in 1986 (4)
SCC 632, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a Writ of Mandamus is not a
writ of course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must
be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus
will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in
the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the Court will only enforce
http://www.judis.nic.in the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a
17
person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction
of a Court to issue a writ of Mandamus.
Raisa Begum And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 6 May, 1994
(ii) In Raisa Begum v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 All.L.J. 534,
the Allahabad High Court has held that certain conditions have to be
satisfied before a writ of mandamus is issued. The petitioner for a writ of
mandamus must show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to
do or abstain from doing something. There must be in the petitioner a right
to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents. The
duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. It must be a duty of
public nature created by the provisions of the Constitution or of a statute
or some rule of common law.
State Of Up & Ors vs Harish Chandra & Ors on 12 April, 1996
(a) In the decision reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 (State of U.P. and
Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors.) in paragraph 10, the Apex Court held as
follows:
A.M.S. Mohamed Housuf vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board By Its Secretary ... on 3 December, 1997
15. Firstly, writ petition based on the newspaper report, is not
maintainable. Reference can be made to few decisions,
"(i) A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in A.S.M.Kumar v. State
of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 399, to which, one of us, is a
party, has considered the following judgments,
http://www.judis.nic.in "8.The question of admissibility of the newspaper reports came up
10
for consideration in Samant N.Balkrishna and another Vs.George
Fernandez and other reported in 1969 (3) SCC 238 at paragraph 26, the
Apex Court observed that
"A newspaper item without any further proof of what had
actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a
second hand evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information
and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publish it. In
this process truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items
cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into
account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible."
Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Sunder Lal Jain & Anr on 8 January, 2008
(c) In the decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 280 (Oriental Bank of
http://www.judis.nic.in Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain) in paragraphs 11 and 12 the Supreme Court
18
held thus,