Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., Aftab Alam, K.S. P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Prakash Singh and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Petitions (C) No. 310 of 1996 with Nos. 417 of 2010 and 42 of 2011
Decided On : 11-04-2011
ORDER :
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., Aftab Alam, K.S. P. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
With regard to the implementation of Direction No. 4 under the Heading "Separation of Investigation", given in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 1, learned Solicitor General seeks time to take instructions on the question of functional segregation of the Investigative Wing from the Law and Order Wing of the Police. Today, as the situation stands, there is no such segregation. Briefly, the suggestion is that the Investigation Police should be separated from the Law and Order Police and the former should be insulated from any extraneous influence which is the paramount need today to sustain the principle of rule of law.
2. Similarly, with regard to Direction Nos. 2 and 3 under the headings "Selection and minimum tenure of DGP" and "Minimum tenure of IG of police and other officers" respectively, one week's time is sought by the learned Solicitor General to take instructions. Accordingly, the matter shall stand over for one week.
3. Place this matter on 18th April, 2011. I.A. No....of 2011 (filed on behalf of State of Karnataka) in W.P. (C) No. 310 of 1996:
4. The interlocutory application is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. We have made it clear to the Learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka that the subject-matter of this interlocutory application has nothing to do with the implementation of the Directions given by this Court in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 1.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
