Manohar Joshi vs Nitin Bhaurao
The Mumbai High Court order
declaring Manohar Joshis election as void was set aside.
To the contention that communal speeches by party
leaders during Joshis campaign constituted corrupt practices under the
Representation of People Act, the Supreme Court held that the consent of the returned
candidate or his election agent had nowhere been pleaded in the petition.
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind vs Union of India,
A tribunal order endorsing a
government notification which declared the Jamaat-e-Islami as an "unlawful
association" was set aside. In accepting the notification, the apex court held, the
tribunal should have had access to the confidential material on which it was based.
S.R. Bommai vs Union of India, 1994:
A nine-judge bench set aside the Presidential proclamation under
Section 356(1) relating to Karnataka (April 21, 1989). The court held that the President
could dissolve a state assembly only after parliamentary approval. He could suspend the
assembly, subject to approval by Parliament, within two months. Even so, the proclamations
were subject to judicial review.
Ramakant Khalap vs Speaker of Goa, 1993:
In response to the Mumbai High Courts dismissal of the appeal
made by an MLA (Khalap) against the order of the acting Speaker revoking the
disqualification of chief minister Ravi Naik by the Speaker (since removed), the court
held the acting Speakers orders void and upheld the dis-qualification order of the
Nilabati Behra vs state of Orissa, 1993:
Awarding Rs 1.5 lakh as compensation to Nilabati Behra, whose letter
about the death of her 22-year-old son in custody was turned into a writ petition, Justice
Verma observed: "The right of compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts
of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interests and which present for their
protection the powers of the state as a shield."
Sarojini Ramaswamy vs Union of India,1992:
In response to
the plea made by the wife of Justice V. Ramaswamy, a motion for whose impeachment
had been moved in Parliament, the Supreme Court held that even if the President removed a
Supreme Court justice under Article 124(4), the concerned judge was entitled to a judicial
K. Veeraswami vs Union of India, 1991:
In response to the petition (filed by a former high court chief
justice) that he could not be proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Act
(PCA), 1947, a Supreme Court bench had decided that a superior court judge was a public
servant and could be prosecuted under the Act. Justice Verma, however, dissented, saying
that the amended PCA, 1964, did not apply to Supreme Court and high court judges.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT