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

1993 Supreme(AP) 477

S.PARVATHA RAO, M.N.RAO, D.REDDAPPA REDDY
Sakinala Hari Nath – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


M. N. RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of cases, the primordial question for consideration concerns the constitutionality of sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Article 323-A. Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India consisting of two Articles - 323-A and 323-B - was inserted by Section 46 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 3-1-1977. Clause (1) of Article 323-A confers power on Parliament to establish, by law, administrative tribunals for adjudication of disputes and complaints with regard to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local authority or of Public Corporation controlled or owned by the Government. Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (2) speak of what the law made under Clause (1) may provide for. Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) lays down mat the law made under Clause (1) may "exclude, the jurisdiction of all Courts except the jurisdiction of the supreme, Court under Article 136 with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in Clause (l)". Clause (3) incorporatingnon-obefante clause mandates that the provisions of Article 323-A shall have effect not with standing any tilin































































































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