Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Balkrishna Ram VS Union Of India...
Balkrishna Ram VS Union Of India - 2020 1 Supreme 179 : When a magistrate declines to abide by a landmark constitutional judgment of the Supreme Court and proceeds to pronounce charges, the aggrieved party may seek remedy through the High Court''''s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court retains its power of judicial review and extraordinary writ jurisdiction even against orders passed by statutory tribunals like the Armed Forces Tribunal, as this power is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by legislation. While the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy (such as an appeal to the Supreme Court) may lead the High Court to refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction as a matter of prudence, it does not oust the jurisdiction. The High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in cases of glaring illegality, particularly where the alternative remedy is not practically accessible—such as when the aggrieved party is a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) or Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), for whom approaching the Supreme Court may be financially and practically impossible. Therefore, the appropriate remedy lies in filing a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226, which the High Court may entertain in exceptional circumstances involving constitutional violations or manifest illegality, even if an alternative remedy exists.Checking relevance for Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan VS Subhas Sharma...
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan VS Subhas Sharma - 2002 2 Supreme 314 : When a magistrate or lower court declines to abide by a landmark constitutional judgment of the Supreme Court and proceeds to pronounce charges, the appropriate remedy lies in an appeal to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or to the Supreme Court under Article 32, particularly where the issue involves a violation of fundamental rights or a constitutional principle. The judgment in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 establishes that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be ousted by statutory provisions, even if an administrative tribunal is established. The High Court retains its power of judicial review, and it is not open for an aggrieved person to bypass the tribunal in the first instance, but if a lower court (such as a magistrate) acts contrary to a binding Supreme Court precedent, the aggrieved party may approach the High Court for appropriate writ relief under Article 226. The decision in Chandra Kumar further clarifies that the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated by any law, including the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, the remedy for a magistrate''''s refusal to follow a Supreme Court constitutional judgment is to seek redress through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court or Supreme Court.Checking relevance for Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas VS Ministry Of Education & The Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare...
Checking relevance for NBCC (India) Ltd. VS State of West Bengal...
Checking relevance for Pravin Kumar VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Manoj Kumar VS Union Of India...
Checking relevance for L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India...
L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India - 1997 3 Supreme 147 : When a magistrate declines to abide by a landmark constitutional judgment of the Supreme Court and proceeds to pronounce charges, the appropriate remedy lies in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 to exercise judicial review over legislative and executive actions—including decisions by subordinate courts and tribunals—is an essential and inviolable part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This power cannot be ousted or excluded by any law or constitutional provision. Therefore, if a lower court or magistrate acts contrary to a binding Supreme Court judgment, the aggrieved party may approach the High Court under Article 226 to challenge the legality of the decision and seek appropriate relief, including quashing the charges. The High Court has the authority to review and correct such erroneous decisions, ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates.Checking relevance for Deenbandhu Kaushik S/o Hemcharan Kaushik VS State of Chhattisgarh...
Deenbandhu Kaushik S/o Hemcharan Kaushik VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 106 : When a magistrate declines to abide by a landmark constitutional judgment of the Supreme Court and pronounces charges, the appropriate remedy lies in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This is because the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is discretionary, not mandatory. In cases involving infringement of constitutional protections under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, failure of principles of natural justice, or proceedings that are wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the existence of an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court has held that the High Court can intervene where fundamental rights are at stake, natural justice is violated, or the proceedings lack jurisdiction.Checking relevance for Amal Chandra Das VS State of West Bengal...
Checking relevance for Ajay Rawat vs Union of India...
Checking relevance for Nasimuddin Ansari VS Union of India...
Nasimuddin Ansari VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 3202 : When a magistrate or lower authority declines to abide by a landmark constitutional judgment of the Supreme Court and proceeds to pronounce charges, the appropriate remedy lies in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The existence of an alternate remedy (such as review under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or a mercy petition) does not bar the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction if there is a violation of fundamental rights, breach of principles of natural justice, or if the order is wholly without jurisdiction. In such exceptional circumstances—particularly where there is mala fide, arbitrary action, or discriminatory treatment—the High Court may intervene despite the availability of alternative remedies. This principle was affirmed in cases like Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, which hold that constitutional remedies are not ousted by statutory alternatives when fundamental rights or procedural fairness are at stake.
