Supreme Court upheld HC’s power to review decisions arising out of Armed Forces Tribunal U/A 226 of the Constitution (21/03/2023)

Tagged: Armed Forces Tribunal, judicial review, Supremecourtsaid

This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 6 months, 1 week ago by advtanmoy.

Viewing 0 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 23/03/2023 at 08:10 #127609
  
  advtanmoy
  Keymaster
  
  The judgment in Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. case does not lay down the correct law and is in conflict with judgments of the Constitution Benches rendered prior and later to it, including in L. Chandra Kumar case, S.N. Mukherjee26 case, and Rojer Mathew case making it abundantly clear that there is no per se restriction on the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. However, in respect of matters of self-discipline, the principles already stand enunciated.
  
  [See the full post at: Supreme Court upheld HC’s power to review decisions arising out of Armed Forces Tribunal U/A 226 of the Constitution (21/03/2023)]
Author

Posts

Viewing 0 reply threads

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Judgments

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab (23/09/2014)

Smt. Roopa Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni (06/09/2023)

Riya Bawri Etc. Vs. Mark Alexander Davidson & Ors (23/08/2023)

L. Janakirama Iyer And Others vs P. M. Nilakanta Iyer And Others (26/10/1961)

Yadaiah and Anr. Vs. State of Telangana and Ors (01/08/2023)

A judge is the pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from a judge (SC-10/12/2019) - A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
A daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act of her father’s property if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023) - A Hindu daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act on the property of her father if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023)- [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC 169: (1950) SCR 453, Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC 462: (1954) SCR 1133, Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR (1959) SC 633: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 136: (1959) 1 LLJ 413, Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 331: (1983) SCC (L&S) 19, Taherakhatoon (dead) by LRs v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635]