Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
State Of Odisha vs Mandakini Guru on 19 February, 2026 cites

R. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son ... vs State Of Tamil Naduthrough The ... on 21 October, 1997

"...The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank who have warned that future aid to under- developed countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. The need to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is not unknown in other countries: R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1995) 1 WLR 386.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 674 - G N Ray - Full Document

Gramophone Company Of India Ltd vs Birendra Bahadur Pandey & Ors on 21 February, 1984

4.4.3. Added to the above, the Rules requiring compulsory filing of Property Declaration are consistent with International Conventions of the United Nations. The Apex Court in Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey6, has said that in the absence of contrary legislation, municipal Courts in India would respect the rules of International Law, which would include the International Conventions & Treaties. In interpreting Rules of the kind, Courts would so construe them, if possible, as will not violate any established principle of International Law. The Property Declaration of a public servant shall avail in public domain so that such public servants are under a continuous glare of public eye. Any member of the public can scrutinize the same and bring to the notice of concerned higher-ups, if declaration is defective or deceptive. It is almost on par with the declaration of assets & liabilities by the People's Representatives (MPs & MLAs) inter alia under Section 33-B of the Representation of the People Act, 6 AIR 1984 SC 667 (Para 6).
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 104 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955

4.6.2. The Apex Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab7, observed that our Constitution recognizes the doctrine of separation of powers, though not as strictly as the U.S. Constitution does it. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain8, this doctrine has been held to be a basic feature of the Constitution. One organ of the State cannot arrogate to itself the powers of other. Each should show deference to the decision of other. Each has to operate within the sphere constitutionally allocated to it. Sages of law shun the trespass of one into the realm of another. An argument to the contrary would make Montesquieu (1689-1755), the father of this doctrine, to shiver in his grave.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 327 - Full Document

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr on 7 November, 1975

4.6.2. The Apex Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. The State of Punjab7, observed that our Constitution recognizes the doctrine of separation of powers, though not as strictly as the U.S. Constitution does it. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain8, this doctrine has been held to be a basic feature of the Constitution. One organ of the State cannot arrogate to itself the powers of other. Each should show deference to the decision of other. Each has to operate within the sphere constitutionally allocated to it. Sages of law shun the trespass of one into the realm of another. An argument to the contrary would make Montesquieu (1689-1755), the father of this doctrine, to shiver in his grave.
Supreme Court of India Cites 168 - Cited by 520 - Full Document
1