SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 364

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM, R. M. LODHA, J. M. PANCHAL
Amrinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Spl. Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appearing Parties :Gopal Subramanium, Additional Solicitor General, K. Parasaran, Uday Umesh Lalit, Ashok H. Desai, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Shyam Diwan K. Parasaran, Uday Umesh Lalit, Senior Advocates, Ms. Jayshree Anand, Additional Advocate General, Atul Nanda, Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Abhijat P. Medh, Law Associates & Co., K.K. Mahalik, Ms. Nitu Kumai Sinha, Kuldip Singh, Gaurav Agarwal, Ajay Pal, Aprajit Singh, Nikhil Jain, Aman Pal, Ms. Sukhda Pritam, Ardendhu Mauli K. Prasad, Gorminder Singh, Ms. Anuradha Biundra, Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Ms. Charu Sangwan, Paruthi K. Goswamy, Chaman Lal Premi, Jai Shree Anand, Ajay Bansal, Aman Ahluwalia, Balaji Subramanian (for B.K. Prasad), Advocates.

Judgment :-

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.

1. The appellant was the Chief Minister of the State of Punjab during the 12th term of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. The appellant was duly elected as a member of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha for its 13th term.

2. The Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 10-9-2008 passed a resolution which directed the expulsion of the appellant for the remainder of the 13th term of the same Vidhan Sabha. This resolution was passed after considering a report submitted by a Special Committee of the Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No. 1) on 3-9-2008 which recorded findings that the appellant along with some other persons (petitioners in the connected matters) had engaged in criminal misconduct. The Special Committee had itself been constituted on 18-12-2007 in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Vidhan Sabha. It had been given the task of inquiring into allegations of misconduct that related back to the appellant's tenure as the Chief Minister of the State of Punjab during the 12th term of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. More specifically, it was alleged that the appellant was responsible for the improper exemption of a vacant plot of land which was licensed to a particular private party (measuring







































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top