Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

X versus O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF PEOPLE & ORS.

The Court held that the first proviso to s.3(2) is situational and operates only where notices of motion given in both Houses have been admitted in both Houses; therefore the Speaker lawfully constituted a Committee after the Rajya Sabha motion was not admitted; the Deputy Chairman was competent under Article 91 to refuse admission when the Chairman's office was vacant; the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha overstepped by undertaking quasi-adjudicatory scrutiny of the notice; and no relief under Article 32 was warranted as no infringement of a Fundamental Right was established.

Source excerpt

  • Judges (inquiry) act, 1968
  • Section 3(2) first proviso
  • Article 91
  • Article 124(4)
  • Doctrine of necessity
  • Admission of motion
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus THE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Article 200 offers only three mutually exclusive options to the Governor when a bill is presented — assent, withhold or reserve for the President; the first proviso is attached to withholding and prevents simpliciter withholding or pocket veto; the Governor cannot reserve a bill for the President after the legislature has reconsidered and repassed it in compliance with the first proviso (unless the repassed bill is materially different); the Governor must act on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in narrow constitutionally recognised circumstances; the exercise or inaction of A…

Source excerpt

  • Article 200
  • Article 201
  • Article 142
  • Assent to bills
  • Reservation of bills
  • Withholding of assent
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

STATE OF PUNJAB versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

The Governor was bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning the Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session; the Chief Minister has a duty under Article 167 to furnish information sought by the Governor, but the Chief Minister's failure to furnish information did not justify the Governor's refusal or delay in summoning the Assembly; there was no occasion to take legal advice before summoning in the present facts.

Source excerpt

  • Article 167
  • Article 174
  • Summoning of legislative assembly
  • Duties of governor
  • Duties of chief minister
  • Aid and advice
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JUSTICE (RETD.) MARKANDEY KATJU versus THE LOK SABHA & ANR.

The immunity under Article 105(2) does not extend to House resolutions condemning opinions expressed outside Parliament; judicial review is maintainable. The resolutions passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha condemning the petitioner's remarks did not impair his freedom of speech or inflict any civil consequence. No violation of natural justice occurred, as no penalty or adverse civil effect resulted from the resolutions. The petition is dismissed as no relief is warranted.

Source excerpt

  • Parliamentary privilege
  • Freedom of speech
  • Natural justice
  • Rules of procedure
  • Resolutions of parliament
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

RAMDAS ATHAWALE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Resumption of sittings of Lok Sabha after adjournment sine die is not commencement of a new session; President's address under Article 87 is not required in such circumstances. Speaker's procedural decisions and parliamentary proceedings are immune from judicial review under Article 122 unless fundamental rights are implicated. As no fundamental rights were alleged to be breached, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 32.

Source excerpt

  • President's address to parliament
  • Prorogation vs adjournment
  • Judicial review
  • Speaker's powers
  • Maintainability of writ under article 32
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

BABURAO ALIAS P.B. SAMANT versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The validity of the Proclamations of Emergency and acts passed during the extended House period cannot be questioned, as the required Parliamentary resolutions were duly passed and published in official Parliamentary Debates, fulfilling legal requirements.

Source excerpt

  • Proclamation of emergency
  • Extension of house of people
  • Finance act
  • Publication of parliamentary resolutions
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

STATE OF PUNJAB versus SAT PAL DANG & ORS.

The Supreme Court held the Governor validly prorogued the Assembly on 11th March 1968 via official Gazette notification; power under Article 174(2) is untrammelled, not abused; Governor’s ordinance-making power under Article 213 includes law-making for financial business under Article 209; Section 3 of the Ordinance prevailed over Rule 105 per Article 209, but must be read down vis-à-vis Article 189(4) regarding quorum; Speaker’s authority was superceded by valid ordinance and adjournment by Speaker without consent was void; Deputy Speaker validly certified Money Bills, as Art. 199(4) is dire…

Source excerpt

  • Prorogation of legislative assembly
  • Governor's ordinance power
  • Money bill certification
  • Adjournment of assembly
  • Rules versus statutes
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.