Tag: CONSTITUTION BENCH

Only 50% Job Reservation is Permissible: SC said in CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO VS STATE OF A.P – 22/04/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Providing 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes in scheduled areas offends the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Governor is not conferred power to make any law in derogation to Part III or other provisions of the Constitution of India in the exercise of his power under Clause I, Para 5 of Schedule V. It was also held that G.O.Ms. No.3 is discriminatory as the same adversely affects not only the open category candidates but also other Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and backward classes. It also opined that the reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%.

Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs Meenakshi Marwah and another-11/03/2005

Civil vs Criminal Proceeding-effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.

As between civil and criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

M.S. SHERIFF Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS -The criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the Civil and Criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment – SUPREME COURT [1954]

The duty to act Judicially may be inferred from the provisions of the statute

It is clear therefore that S. 56 (2) deals with cases where there is a doubt in the mind of the collector in regard to an instrument which comes up before him under the above provisions of the Act as to the construction of the instrument and the provisions of the Act applicable to it. Such doubt itself shows that the point raised for the Collector’s decision is a difficult point of law and from the very nature of the duty to be performed in such circumstances it appears clear that the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority has to decide the matter Judicially and would thus be a quasi-Judicial tribunal.

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors- 12/11/2013

Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected.

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others Versus State of Kerala and another 24/04/1973

The view that Art. 368 is a complete code in itself in respect of the procedure provided by it and does not contemplate any amendment of a Bill for amendment of the Constitution after it has been introduced, and that if the Bill is amended during its passage through the House, the Amendment Act cannot be said to have been passed in conformity with the procedure prescribed by Art. 368 and would be invalid, is erroneous.