Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
AAM AADMI PARTY & ANOTHER V/S UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, decided on Friday, March 7, 2014.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 163 of 2014. ] 07/03/2014
Judge(s) : R.M. LODHA & N.V. RAMANA
Advocate(s) : Fali S. Nariman, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan, Kamini Jaiswal, Rohit Singh, Kartik Seth, Sri Krishna Tiwari, Abhimanue Shrestha, Shubhash Sharma, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Goolam E. Vahanvati, K.V. Vishwanathan, Rohit Sharma, Jaishree Viswanathan, V.K. Prasad, Vikas Garg, B.K. Prasad, Manohar Lal Sharma, Rabin Majumdar.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  In the Matter of: Swaraj India Versus State Election Commission & Another,   29/03/2017.  

  Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal & Another Versus Union of India, Central Government Advocates, Income Tax Building Annexe & Others,   14/12/2016.  

  Praveen Versus State,   15/11/2016.  

  Vivek Garg Versus State,   25/10/2016.  

  Arvind Kejriwal Versus Arun Jaitley & Others,   19/10/2016.  

  Manoj Kumar Shokeen Versus Raghuvinder Shokeen,   19/09/2016.  

  ACJ Versus RJ,   23/05/2016.  

  Dharmesh Prasad Verma Versus The State of Bihar ,   10/05/2016.  

  State of H.P. Versus Lal Chand & Another,   05/05/2016.  

  Arun Jaitley Versus Arvind Kejriwal & Others,   29/04/2016.  

  Arun Jaitley Versus Arvind Kejriwal & Others,   08/02/2016.  

  Campaign for People Participation in Development Planning Versus Union of India & Another,   14/07/2015.  

  Hans Raj Jain Versus Election Commission of India,   19/03/2015.  

  Anil Bhatia & Others Versus Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others,   19/02/2015.  

  Rakesh @ toni Versus state NCT of delhi,   10/12/2014.  

  Center for PIL Versus Union of India (UOI),   20/11/2014.  

  Aam Aadmi Party & Others Versus Mumbai Cricket Association & Others,   20/11/2014.  

  Aam Aadmi Party & Another Versus Union of India & Others,   11/11/2014.  

  State & Others Versus Surender @ Sonu Punjabi & Others,   17/09/2014.  

  Aam Aadmi Party & Another Versus Union of India & Others,   09/09/2014.  

  Aam Aadmi Party & Another Versus Union of India & Others,   04/07/2014.  

  Aam Aadmi Party & Another Versus Union of India & Others,   17/04/2014.  

  Rajan Prakash & Others Versus Delhi Police Through Its Commissioner & Another,   31/03/2014.  

  Vinod Kumar Binny Versus Speaker, Delhi Legislative Assembly & Another,   19/02/2014.  

  Prakash Chand Versus State,   02/12/2013.  

  Beenu Rawat & Others Versus Union of India & Others,   19/11/2013.  

  U.S. Pandey President of W.A.S. & Another Versus UOI & Others,   08/10/2013.  

  Pankaj Versus State,   20/09/2013.  

  Sandeep @ Dhillu & Another Versus The State NCT of Delhi,   12/08/2013.  

  The Chief Executive Officer, Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty(SERP) Versus Nakka Lakshmi & Another,   29/07/2013.  

  M/s. Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Others,   23/07/2013.  

  Sri Sankar Datta Versus State of West Bengal & Others,   05/07/2013.  

  S.K. Singhal Versus State (C.B.I.),   03/05/2013.  

  Bata India Ltd. Versus A.M. Turaz & Others,   15/10/2012.  

  Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid & Others Versus State Of Maharashtra & Others,   29/08/2012.  

  Ranjan KR Singh Versus Union of India & Others,   10/03/2011.  

  Mahipal Singh Raghav Versus UOI & Others,   07/03/2011.  

  Amresh Kumar Mishra Versus State Of Bihar,   02/11/2010.  

  Appanna & Others Versus The State,   30/08/2010.  

  Phool Singh Versus State (NCT Of Delhi),   07/10/2009.  

  R.K. Anand & Another Versus Registrar, Delhi High Court ,   29/07/2009.  

  Dashrath Singh Chauhan Versus C.B.I.,   20/07/2009.  

  Kishwar Jahan Versus State of West Bengal,   14/08/2008.  

  Mohd. Hafiz s/o Habibulla Versus State of Maharashtra ,   23/10/2002.  

  Amar Singh Bhati Versus Union of India,   30/09/2002.  

  State of Maharashtra Versus Bharat Chaganlal Raghani ,   11/07/2001.  

  Post Master, G.P.O., Patna Versus Dr. Prateep Kumar,   16/04/2001.  

  Babu Kuttan R. Pillai & Another Versus State of Maharashtra ,   15/12/2000.  

  Babu Kuttan R. Pillai Versus State of Maharashtra ,   15/12/2000.  

  Ram Dubar Yadeo Versus State of U.P.,   06/09/1999.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2014 (16) SCC 396"  ==   ""  







    1. Interlocutory applications for intervention are dismissed.2. One of the arguments put forth by Mr. Fali S. Nariman learned senior counsel for the petitioners is : In view of the grounds K to N and P to S in the counter affidavit of the Union of India whether after the enactment of Tenth Schedule waiting or accepting defection to happen is at all a relevant consideration on whether or not to keep the Assembly in suspended animation and not to be dissolved ?3. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati learned Attorney General submits that the above question is no more res integra in light of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad and Others (VI) v. Union of India and Another (2006) 2 SCC 1. In this regard learned Attorney General referred to paras 82 to 86 of the said judgment.4. On the other hand Mr. Fali S. Nariman learned senior counsel for the petitioners also relies upon para 86 of the said judgment wherein the Constitution Bench observed :86. Undisputedly a Governor is charged with the duty to preserve protect and defend the Constitution and the laws has a concomitant duty and obligation to preserved emocracy and not to permit the canker of political defections to tear into the vitals of the Indian democracy...5. The judgment of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad and Others (VI) (2006) 2 SCC 1 may need deeper consideration if necessary.6. But before we consider that it is necessary to have the views of two political parties who have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 because their firm position in the matter may obviate necessity of consideration of the above question.7. Let notice be issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 returnable on March 31 2014.8. Dasti in addition to the ordinary process is permitted.9. We record that learned Attorney General in the course of hearing has handed over copy of the Lieutenant General's report dated 15.02.2014 to the advocate-on-record for the petitioners.10. Rejoinder affidavit handed over by the advocate-on-record for the petitioners in the Court is taken on record.