English Typing Test

PremiumMembersAdvancedSearchDisclaimer keshavanandbharticase ViewCompletedocument SatyaPalAnandvsBalNeketanNyason24March,2015 Showingthecontextsinwhichkeshavanandbharticaseappearsinthedocument ChangecontextsizeCurrent 11.ThepetitionersubmittedthatthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofNareshShridharMirajkarVs.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1967SC1hasbeendealtwithinthecelebratedcaseofHisHolinessKeshavanandBhartiVs.StateofKeralaandanother,AIR1973SC1461and,therefore,theratiolaiddowninthecaseofMirajkar(supra)standswatereddownifnotoverturned,intermsoftheviewtakenbythelargerBench.Thepetitionerhasinvitedourattentiontoparagraphs1717to1719ofthejudgmentinthecaseofKeshavanandBharti(supra)andhassubmittedthatjudiciaryisaStateandisanauthorityunderArticle12oftheConstitutionofIndiaandjudicialprocessisaStateaction.WhilereferringtojudgmentoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofS.P.GuptaVs.UnionofIndia(1981)Supp.SCC87,itiscontendedthatjudiciaryisaseparatebutequalpartoftheStateandisdutyboundtomeettheconstitutionalobjectionofprovidingeconomicandsocialjusticethroughtheprocessoflawandmustbeinvolvednotmerelyasanumpirebutmoreactivelytobringsocialandeconomicjusticetocommonman.Itisfurthersubmittedthatviolationoffundamentalrightitselfrendersthejudicialdecisionanullity.Inthisconnection,reliancehasbeenplacedonadecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofA.R.AntuleyVs.R.S.Nayak,(1988)2SCC602.Whilereferringtoparagraph58ofthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofStateofRajasthanVs.PrakashChand,(1998)1SCC1,itispointedoutthatConstitutionofIndiavestslimitedpowerstoallJudgesatalllevelsandthataJudgeisalthoughfreebutnottotallyfree.ItisalsopointedoutthatDr.DurgaDasBasuhascriticizedthedictuminMirajkar'scase(supra)andhasobservedthatthesameiscontrarytotheConstitutionofIndia. 13.ItisurgedthatthewritpetitionwaslawfullyfiledandhasbeenentertainedbythisCourtdirectingissuanceofnoticesandincomplianceoftheorderdated5.3.2015,thepetitionerhasalreadypaidtheprocessfee.ItisfurthersubmittedthatdecisionrenderedbyThreeJudgeBenchinthecaseofRadheshyamandanother(supra)appearstobelimitedtoacasewhereupononfacts,reliefisclaimedtoquashtheorderpassedbytheCivilCourtandnootherreliefisclaimedashasbeenclaimedintheinstantwritpetition.Therefore,thedecisioninthecaseofRadheshyamandanother(supra)hasnoapplication.ItisalsosubmittedthatdecisionofRadheshyamandanother(supra)isper-incuriam,asithasfailedtonoticethedecisionrenderedby13JudgeBenchoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofKeshavanandBharti(supra).Itisalsourgedthatreasonabletimebegrantedtothepetitionersothathecouldmakedeeperstudyonquestionoflaw.Lastly,itiscontendedthatanyadverseorderispassedagainstthepetitioner,operationoftheorderdated25.2.2015besuspended
0:00