Riaa Petition And Finality Of Dispute

Discuss the view that the power of the Supreme Court cannot be justified in a

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

There were 182,908 total cases disposed during the study with 2,368 were appealed and 320 decisions being reversed. Based on

Facts of the case (Summary of facts of case and its journey to Supreme Court)

Issue 2 and 5: The Court noted that the exclusion of principles of natural justice (PNJ) is a well known concept and the legislature has the competence to enact such laws. Whether the exclusion of application of PNJ would vitiate the entire proceedings would depend upon the nature and facts of every case in the light of the Act or Rules and Regulation applicable to the case. The Court, then, read into various provisions of the Act and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 in order to determine the nature of functions of the Commission under various provisions. The Court found that at the face of it, the exercise of power u/s. 26(1) of the Act while forming prima facie opinion is inquisitorial and regulatory. It held that while forming prima facie opinion, the Commission does not condemn anyone. This function is not adjudicatory in nature but merely administrative. This function is in the nature of preparatory measures in contrast to the decision making process and hence

Include name of parties in the case at the Court of first instance and Appellate Courts and name of Trial and Appellate judges.

Based on the summarized petitions and its recommendation, if the cases are in the Justices’ favor, the Justices make a decision to proceed with the issue of a “writ of certiorari.”

This is an appeal against a decision of the full count of the supreme court of western

In order to ensure that Fundamental Rights did not remain empty provisions, the founding fathers of our Constitution have made various provisions in the Constitution to maintain an independent judiciary. Articles related to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and independent judiciary together provide a firm constitutional basis to the growth of Public Interest Litigation in India. The founding fathers envisaged ‘‘the judiciary as a bastion of rights and justice’’. An independent judiciary lanced with the power of judicial review was the constitutional device chosen to achieve the required objective. This jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights was conferred upon both the Supreme Court and the High Courts, hence them being the courts that have entertained all the Public Interest Litigation cases.

* The Court has jurisdiction and powers to hear and determine appeals from the High Court/Court Tribunal;

Jury trials in India had come to an end unceremoniously; the immediate cause for abolition of jury trials was “Not Guilty” verdict of jury in K.M.Nanavati Vs. state of Maharashtra . The sessions Judge disagreed the Jury opinion, in his view, no reasonable body of men could bring that verdict on the evidence and referred the matter

The choice between the diffuse and the concentrated model of judicial review (and, within the concentrated family of systems, between the supreme court version and the constitutional court version) is often understood to reflect a divide among two competing theories of constitutional law. One theory perceives constitutional law as, first and foremost, a field of law, to which regular adjudicatory method is applicable, along with its assumptions of professionalism, objectivism, and interpretivism. This theory aligns with the diffuse model of judicial review, since it leaves constitutional jurisdiction in the hands of the professional judiciary. A contrasting theory posits constitutional law as a unique field of normative ordering,

Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg., Justice N. L. Untwalia, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice P. S. Kailasam, Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud.

In Lily Thomas V. Union Of India the writ petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation for mainly declaring sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter Act), 1951 as ultra vires the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of India has adopted a forward-looking approach since last few years, particularly having regard to the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country. In fact there are two kinds of approaches which characterise the functioning of the highest Court in every