Keshavan Madhava Menon Vs The State of Bombay-22/01/1951

If a Statute is void from its very birth, then anything done under it, whether closed, completed, or inchoate, will he wholly illegal and relief in one shape or another has to be given to the person affected by such an unconstitutional law. This rule, however, is not applicable in regard to laws which were existing and were constitutional according to the Government of India Act, 1935. Of course, if any law is made after 26-1-1950 which is repugnant to the Constitution, then the same rule will have to be followed by Courts in India as is followed in America and even convictions made under such an unconstitutional law will have to be set aside by resort to exercise of powers given to this Ct. by the Constitution.

Continue Reading

BENEDICT DENIS KINNY  VS TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS-19/03/2020

WRIT JURISDICTION-The power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and is basic structure of our Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is original, extraordinary and discretionary. The look out of the High Court is to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision of a constitutional authority, a tribunal, a statutory authority or an authority within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1429-1430/2020

(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13703-13704 of 2019)

BENEDICT DENIS KINNY

VERSUS

TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1431/2020
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 19732 of 2019)

SMT. PRACHI PRASAD PARAB

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Continue Reading

MUKESH VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI-19/03/2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).119/2020

MUKESH

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

ORDER

We have heard Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Mukesh- the convict.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the points on merits of the matter:- (i) That there was no proper consideration of evidence; (ii) regarding the disability of Ram Singh (accused no.1) who subsequently allegedly committed suicide in the prison; and (iii) raising doubts about the arrest of the petitioner at Karoli, Rajasthan and inter alia on other points.

Continue Reading

DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS.  VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR- 02/03/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1099 OF 2019

DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS. 

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 

And  See below

Concurring Judgment

ORDER

1. These cases pertain to the constitutional challenge before this Court as regards to two Constitution Orders issued by the President of India in exercise of his powers under Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

2. At the outset, learned senior counsel appearing for one of the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1013/19 and Petitioner in W.P.

Continue Reading

SHRIPAL BHATI & ANR. VS STATE OF U.P. & ORS- 29/1/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

“It may be relevant to refer to the observations made by this Court in the case Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors.2, relied upon by the High Court, holding that unless injury is suffered personally a person can not be said to be aggrieved and has no locus standi.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2020

(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 9276 OF 2017)

SHRIPAL BHATI & ANR. 

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 

Acts: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1981/ U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976

From: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Continue Reading

Apex Court is in favour of disclosing marks of Main Exam before conducting viva-voce in Judicial Services-13/12/2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post.

Disclosing mark of written Examination before Viva-Voce-As regards the petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism. The broad principles to be laid down in this regard must be viewed keeping in view the selections for various categories of posts by different Selecting Authorities, for such a self-evolved criteria cannot be restricted to Judicial Services only. If the Members of the Interviewing Boards are already aware of the marks of a candidate secured in the Written Examination, they can individually or jointly tilt the final result in favour or against such candidate.The suggested recourse, thus, is likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of a candidate in viva-voce. The acceptance of the plea of the petitioners in this regard will also run contrary to the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana((1985) 4 SCC 417).

Continue Reading