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

2005 Supreme(SC) 1770

N.SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P.SINGH, S.B.SINHA
Prakash Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


ORDER :

N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh, S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. We are of the considered opinion that since a proper response has not been received either from the Union of India or from the respective State Governments in regard to the prayers sought for in the writ petition, we think it appropriate to issue directions to the Union of India and various States through their Home Secretaries that why the directions issued in para 60 in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226 and recommendations made by the Ribeiro Commission Report of 1998-1999 for implementing the same (sic were not implemented/followed).

3. The Union of India and the respective States shall file their response within eight weeks from today in response to these directions. Respondent 27, National Human Rights Commission will also file its recommendation in this regard.

4. List the matter after eight weeks.

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