K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. M. PANCHAL, P. SATHASIVAM, D. K. JAIN, R. V. RAVEENDRAN
Bhim Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J. —
1)The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions challenging the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “MPLAD Scheme”) as ultra vires of the Constitution of India. They also prayed for direction from this Court for scrapping of the MPLAD Scheme and for impartial investigation for the misuse of the funds allocated in the Scheme.
2)Though the challenge in the writ petitions and the transferred cases is to the constitutional validity of the MPLAD Scheme, in view of substantial question of interpretation of Articles 275 and 282 of the Constitution of India are involved, particularly, transfer of funds from the Union Government to the Members of Parliament, by reference dated 12th July, 2006 a three-Judge Bench headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India referred the same to a Constitution Bench. In this way, the above matters are heard by this Constitution Bench.
3)Brief facts:
On 23.12.1993, the then Prime Minister announced the MPLAD Scheme. This scheme was formulated for enabling the Members of Parliament to identify small works of capital nature based on locally felt needs in their constituencies. The obje
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. The State of Punjab, (1955) 2 SCR 225
Kuldip Nayar & Ors. v.Union of India & Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 1
State of West Bengal v. Union of India [1964] 1 SCR 371)
S. R. Bommai and Ors.v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 3 SCC 1
Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. Stateof Rajasthan [1963]1SCR491)
State of West Bengal v. Union of India [1964] 1 SCR 371; Referred. (Para 36)
State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India [1978] 1 SCR 1; Referred. (Para 36)
ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee [2002] 1 SCR441; Referred. (Para 36)
M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala & Another,(1973) 4 SCC 225
Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain,AIR 1977 SC 69
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCR1
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. ( 1980 ) 3 SCC 625
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.