Any attempt at interpretation of a long line of cases proves to be tiresome. Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009], delivered on 02.05.2016, provides a brave summary. Accept it with abundant caution. 5 Judges have no jurisdiction to interpret 7 or 11 erstwhile Lords. The […]
Read more "Look, T.M.A. Pai Again"SC in Justice Mohapatra, (2002) 8 SCC 1 had “accorded primacy to the opinion of the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the consultative process for appointment of Lokayukta”. We have been reminded so in Sachchidanand Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 872 of 2015], decided on 28.01.2016. Justice Lokur in Justice Chandrashekaraiah, […]
Read more "Primacy of Views II: Justice Mohapatra, (2002) 8 SCC 1"Hon’ble Justice Kurian Joseph has been in news: first, because of his tiff with CJI Dattu and second, for his contribution in Yakub Memon. Gold fish have no hiding place. And therefore, ‘briefest’ Judgment? “Historical, Textual, Structural, Prudential, Doctrinal, Episodic, Ethical” arguments aside, “there cannot be any legal sense of an issue, which does not […]
Read more "NJAC Judgment V: Kurian Joseph J"In Hemlata Singh v. Collector [MANU/UC/0315/2008], Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia [High Court of Uttarakhand] notes, “Chutzpah is a remarkable expression in Hebrew. Chutzpah is said to happen when a man kills his mother and father and then asks for clemency on the ground that he is now an orphan.” Hon’ble Justice S. Dhulia is the […]
Read more "Chutzpah"Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna, (2013) 3 SCC 117 held, views expressed by Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka have no ‘primacy’ in process of appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by Governor of Karnataka. High Court was of view, since Order passed by Governor of Karnataka, appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as an […]
Read more "Primacy of Views I: The Karnataka Lokayukta Act"In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao, (2001) 10 SCC 51 a Two-Judge Bench [Babu and Raju JJ] held, “the rules of the game, meaning thereby the criteria for selection, cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced.” In K. Manjusree, (2008) 3 SCC 512 […]
Read more "Referred to Larger Bench I: The Rules of The Game Principle"
You must be logged in to post a comment.