The Revival of Ray LXXVI

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

After Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 1 SCC 133 a ‘discordant note’ came to be struck in Pista Devi, (1986) 4 SCC 251. Chameli Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 549 proceeded to consider decisions in Gavate, Pista Devi and Rajasthan Housing Board, (1993) 2 SCC 84. Chameli Singh was not noticed in Om Prakash, (1998) 6 SCC 1. Radhy Shyam, (2011) 5 SCC 553 did an exhaustive survey of Gavate, Pista Devi, Rajasthan Housing Board and Chameli Singh. Anand Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 242 noticed conflict between Gavate and Pista Devi.

State of Haryana v. Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 12 SCC 265 took view, public interest must receive primacy when it conflicts with private interest.

It is true, decisions appear to convey conflicting signals. However, there is a certain element of consensus on fundamental principles; dichotomy essentially has to be resolved by carefully attending to facts of each case; true concept unraveled in Gavate is, total evidence theory.

– Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph, Hamid Ali Khan v. State of U.P., [Civil Appeal No. 1267 of 2012].

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.