Skip to main content

MISUSE OF ARTICLE 356- OISINI PODDAR AT LEXCLIQ

 MISUSE OF ARTICLE 356- OISINI PODDAR AT LEXCLIQ

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is the State Emergency in preferred terms. In this newsletter, the applicants of the diverse examinations can apprehend the meaning, provisions, background, and controversies associated with Article 356.State Emergency or Article 356 of the Constitution of India presents the Indian President, the electricity to droop kingdom authorities and impose President`s rule on any kingdom withinside the country “if he`s happy that a state of affairs has arisen wherein the authorities of the kingdom can't be carried on according with the provisions of the Constitution”.
Many instances this newsletter has been misused through many Governors and it's been a unhappy records in many instances in Indian records. India borrowed this provision from Section ninety three of the Government of India Act, 1935. This provision confronted strict competition from the liberty battle leaders then and this compelled the British authorities to droop it. However, this provision was incorporated into the Constitution to renew the balance of democracy, federalism, and the post-fair era.


Article 356 Political Abuse
⇒ In a 2015 report, the Sarkaria Commission states that it has been used more than 100 times for this independence. In almost all cases it was used for political issues rather than real ones.
⇒ Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi used Article 356 in 27 cases to eliminate the majority government because of political balance, lack of proper authority, and withdrawal of support.
⇒ Manipur experienced the greatest common software in Article 356 due to the kingdom's highly fragmented domestic politics, in addition to long-term violence.
⇒ The focus of the center was on the politically important states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which have fragmented communities.

S.R. Bommai was Prime Minister of the Janata Dal Government of Karnataka from August 13, 1988 to April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989 under Article 356 of the Constitution, and the presidential rules were introduced. This was a common way to curb the opposition at the time. The dismissal was justified by the fact that the Bonmai government lost a majority after several party leaders at the time went into large-scale asylum. Then Governor P. Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai the opportunity to test a majority in parliament, even though Bommai handed him a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Parliamentary Party.
Bonmai appeared in court against the governor's decision to recommend the president's rules. First, he went to the Karnataka High Court and rejected his written application.

Then he moved to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Decision: It took almost five years for the case to reach a logical conclusion, and on March 11, 1994, the Supreme Court's nine Constitutional Chambers issued a historic order. Arbitrary dismissal of the state established the government under Article 356 by imposing restrictions
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more