The power to remove Governors, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench held in 2010, 'cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances'
-
-
The Supreme Court controversially lays down that postponement of publication of court hearings can be considered on a case-by-case basis, raising fears that it could be misused by influential litigants.
-
'The recommendation dated 3rd September,2010 of the High Powered Committee recommending the name of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act is non-est in law'
-
The power to remove Governors 'cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances'
-
<b>The Ninth Schedule Judgement: Part 7 of 7</b>
-
<b>Part 1 of 7:</b> Order of reference, the broad question, Development of the Law, Constitutional Amendment of Ninth Schedule
-
<b>The Ninth Schedule Judgement: Part 2 of 7:</b> Article 32, Principles of Construction, Common Law Constitutionalism, Principles of Constitutionality
-
<b>The Ninth Schedule Judgement: Part 3 of 7</b>—The separation of powers between Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary constitutes basic structure, has been found in Kesavananda Bharati's case by the majority.
-
<b>The Ninth Schedule Judgement: Part 4 of 7</b>—the main thrust of the argument of the petitioners and the Validity of 31B
-
<b>The Ninth Schedule Judgement: Part 5 of 7</b>—every addition to the Ninth Schedule triggers Article 32 as part of the basic structure and is consequently subject to the review of the fundamental rights as they stand in Part III.
Advertisement
Newsletter
Signup for Outlook and get curated content to your inbox everyday.