The courts cannot interfere on the ground that the Governor has been dismissed without sufficient cause The verdict in the case of Surya Narain v. Union of India of the Rajasthan High Court is worth quoting here that “Article 156 provides that Governor holds office during pleasure of the President. It further says that subject to the exercise of
being ‘ragged’. However, with the recent surge in the brutal bullying incidents at schools, involving suicides, shoot outs, sexual assaults and kidnapping, The Raghavan Committee Report, along with the Supreme Court in University of Kerala vs. Council, Principal’s colleges, Kerala & Ors (Supreme Court in Re Civil Appeal 887 OF 2009 on 8 Dec., 2011) has recommended that educational authorities be held responsible for such acts among students. Massive objections have been raised against the decision
The Supreme Court and High Courts have played a great role in the development of Arbitration Law not only in India but also world over. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, l996 is the product of the laws laid down in different cases as well as UNCITRAL Model Law and arbitration law world over. The Supreme Court observed in Narain Khamman v. Pradhuman Kumar , that it is now well settled that though the statement of objects and reasons accompanying a legislative bill cannot be used to determine
Though it is used in variety of cases for investigative purpose. Recently it has been used to many cases like AarushiTalwar’s murder case, Shorahabuddin fake encounter etc. The use of polygraph in India is guided by the landmark judgement of Supreme Court of India in case Selvi and others v. state of Karnataka. The bench of judge found this technique to be a breach to right of privacy as guaranteed by Constitution of India under article 21. Also according to Article 20(3), “no person accused of
defendant; The Long Island Railroad company in civil court. She entered a personal injury lawsuit against the company, Long Island Railroad. She claimed that its employees’ negligence injured her and that she was entitled to damages. The two main issues that arise form this case are: the manner of determination of the duty of care; and the person to whom the party owes a duty of care. Both the trial court and subsequential intermediate apellant court found by jury, verdict for the plaintiff. The ruling
rights are not absolute. The expression must not trample upon the rights of others. In order to secure our nation and ensure everyone’s rights are preserved, reasonable restrictions must be in place. As society and technology have evolved, the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment’s protections to adapting forms of expression never before imagined by our founding fathers. In order to safeguard our rights and freedoms in today’s society, the adaptation of these protections must extend to
interviewing the ‘short-listed candidates in public, as if in open court’. It ‘must prepare a list of nominees with three names more than the number of appointments to be made, and submit the list to the President’ who ‘may make appointments from the list’. The President ‘must advise the Judicial Service Commission, with reasons, if any of the nominees are unacceptable and any appointment remains to be made’. The Commission then ‘must supplement the list with further nominees and the President
contract had ended by frustration. But he was held liable for breach of contract. There was frustration only to the extent of crop failure. The buyer could waive it and claim delivery of whatever little crop the seller's land had produced. The Supreme Court has laid down that frustration puts an end to the liability to perform the contract. It does not exterminate the contract for all purposes. For example, whether the doctrine of frustration would apply or not has to be decided within the framework
The Marbury versus Madison case realized the most discriminating Supreme Court decision ever. The court's choice assembled the power of legitimate review, set the "Protected game plan of overseeing tenets, strengthened the power of the administration, and made the Judiciary a comparable accessory with the Legislative and Executive branches of government" (Marshall 1968). In the Election, Thomas Jefferson was against the federalist Republican Party, and he pulverized the officeholder, John Adams and
VI. ARGUMENTS IN SUPREME COURT After Santosh Kumar Singh was awarded ‘Death Penalty in the High Court appeal was made before the supreme court. DEFENCE: Mr.Sushil Kumar the lawyer for the accused presented his arguments that- • Murder can be said to be committed only if commission of rape is proved. • The observation of the H.C that DNA test proved the involvement of the appellant in rape was not tenable as he argued that vaginal swabs and slides and blood samples had been tampered. • The vaginal