0

Eknath Shinde Faction is the original Shiv Sena : Maharashtra Speaker in the crisis of split of shiv sena party

Uncategorized , , , , ,

Background:

The Maharashtra political crisis revolves around the disqualification of Eknath Shinde Faction of the Shiv Sena party after the Maharashtra election in 2022. The same was challenged by Shinde in the SC. Thackeray contended to the SC that the MLA’s of the Shinde-led Shiv Sena party can only save themselves through merger to another party. The dispute arises on which association is the real or original “shiv sena”. Subsequently, the Thackeray Faction plea was rejected by the SC and the same was transferred to a 7-bench court. Thackeray faction pleaded that the election commission should be challenged on recognizing Eknath Shinde led shiv sena to be original shiv Sena. On May 2023, the SC held the verdict that Eknath Shinde will continue as the CM of Maharashtra. The election commission gave the Shinde led party the original shiv sena sign of bow and arrow and the official name of shiv sena.

Current Scenario:

The SC gave appropriate notice to the Speaker, Rahul Narwekar to adjudicate on the matter relating to disqualification by January 10th 2024 and criticized the delay in adjudication process.

The Maharashtra Legislative assembly speaker, Rahul Narwekar gave a final verdict that the Eknath-Shinde led party as the original Shiv Sena party. He also rejected the disqualification notice produced by Thackeray to disqualify 16 MLA’s of the ruling party, including the chief minister, Eknath Shinde.

The challenge of Eknath Shinde against Thackeray is that he is the paksh pramukh which means he is the party head of the shiv sena party on the basis of legislative majority and Thackeray did not have the power to remove him. However, as per the 1999 party’s constitution amendment, the national executive as the highest party body.

References were taken to the 10th Schedule of the Constitution which mentions about Anti-defection laws. It states that a member shall be disqualified if he joins another political party after election takes place. It also mentions that a disqualification on the name of defection cannot be applied in the cases of merger. Under the 10th Schedule, the speaker acts in the power of a judge and decides whether the grounds of disqualification justified.

The speaker also stated that in the name of 10th Schedule, a dissent or disqualification cannot be enforced within a party over disciplinary issues. The main reason for upholding Shinde faction to be the original shiv sena was because Thackeray faction failed the test of legislative majority. The Shinde faction had the majority of the MLA’s present in the shiv sena members with 37MLA as opposed to 18MLAs in the Thackeray faction.

Interpretation of Schedule 10 of the Constitution:

The genesis of Schedule 10 of the constitution states that a defense for anti-defection is based on the merger of parties and not the split of parties. In the current matter, the factual basis of Shinde let party is that it did not merge to another party but rather split from shiv sena. This is not permitted under the Schedule 10 of the constitution.

The speaker contended that whoever the majority MLA lies with is the original party. It is argued that the test of “legislative majority” is not recognized under the 10th Schedule as the only recourse available for anti defection is merger. It should be noted that from the 2019 elections, the Shiv Sena party was fundamentally led by the Thackeray faction and not by the Shinde faction. The supreme court on its verdict regarding the matter held that a legislative party should be distinguished from a political party. It also held that the power to appoint a government whip lies within the political party which was Thackeray led government at that time.

The Thackeray led faction has planned to challenge the verdict in the SC on the principal contention of challenging the rule of ‘majority legislators’ not being the core principle of Schedule 10.

Conclusion :

The political dynamic of Maharashtra’s shiv sena party is that of game of cat and mouse. Despite the CM being won on majority supporting him, the challenge to the verdict shows a long lasting battle between Shinde and Thackeray in the upcoming years.

The court is also to fact the question whether the parliament or the speaker should have the power of adjudication without having bias over the parties involved.

0

Analysis of the constitutional provision of Article 122 with regards to suspension of members of parliament

Blog , , , , ,

Introduction :

During the winter session of the parliament, more than 145 members of the parliament were suspended on account of opposition to the central government between December 14 and December 21, 2023.  This firstly causes a functional calamity in the parliament and also affects the roles and responsibilities of the MPs. The suspended members are barred from entering the chambers of parliament, including the lobby and gallery. They are also restricted from participating in sittings of Parliamentary Committees. Any notice or business listed under their name will not be under operational conditions during the suspension[1]. Some claim the suspension is a consequence of the Opposition’s demand for a statement in parliament by the government over the security breach[2].

In total, over 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha were suspended and over 46 from the Rajya Sabha. This marks as the highest number of suspensions in the parliament. Crucial bills have been passed at this time of suspension including the telecommunications bill and the criminal law reform bills[3].

The power to suspend :

It is within the authority of both Houses of Parliament to punish disobedient members in order to maintain their uninterrupted operations. This authority is granted in order to make sure the Houses run well and to punish those who cause chaos.

As a general rule, the Presiding officer, i.e the Speaker of both the houses should maintain peace and order so that the House can function smoothly. To ensure that, he/she has the right to withdraw a member from the house.

In the Lok Sabha, The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha provides for the provisions relating to suspension, withdrawal and reprimand from lok sabha due to unruly behaviour[4].

  • Rule 373, the speaker can direct a member to withdraw immediately from the house in case of any misconduct. The members who are ordered to withdraw remain absent for a day’s sitting.
  • Rule 374 provides for the speaker to call out the members who disregard the authority of the chair or abuses the rules. Such members will be suspended for a period not exceeding the session.
  • Rule 374A was added in 2001 which states that if any member through their actions or causes any gross violation will be automatically suspended by the speaker for a period of either 5 consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less.

According to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha)[5], the members of the Rajya Sabha will be suspended through the procedure mentioned in the following procedure :

  • Rule 255 states that the presiding officer can invoke the suspension of the MP. The chairman can suspend if in his opinion is behaving through misconduct or is causing disorder.
  • Rule 256 provides that the chairman can suspend a member from the service of the Council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session.

Constitutional validity of suspension of MPs :

The true essence of Indian Democracy is the feature of separation of powers. This means, the executive, legislature and judiciary are its own bodies and either of them can interfere. The roles of these bodies cannot be interchanged or taken upon.

However, the constitution of India provides for the Judicial Review, which allows the judiciary to look into any reform and suggest the government. Similarly, the constitution also ensures that the powers of the bodies are not overlapped under Article 122.

It states that:

  1. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament

(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure

(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers  

The Supreme Court in various instances have upheld the validity of the proceedings of the parliament on the ground that it is permissible under Article 122. Article 122 set the foundation principle to not overlap the functions of the judiciary and the legislature.

Article 122 acts as an immunity to the Parliament and a restriction on the judiciary.

Judicial Pronouncements

In the case of Ramdas Athawale v Union of India[6], the hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Article 122(2),  the decision of the Speaker in whom powers are vested to regulate the procedure and the conduct of business is final and binding on every Member of the House. The facts of the case was that the speaker adjourned the house and resumed the meeting after a while. The court found that the irregularity of proceedings was not established.

The court also found that, “The courts cannot go into the lawfulness of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament. The Constitution aims at maintaining a fine balance between the legislature, executive and judiciary. The object of the constitutional scheme is to ensure that each of the constitutional organs function within their respective assigned sphere”. The same principle was followed in the case of Satish Chandra v Speaker, Lok Sabha[7] where the court held that it is well used in the language of Article 122 that the courts cannot interfere with the proceedings of the parliament.

In the Allahabad High Court, the question arose in the case of Naveen Gupta V Union of India[8] was whether the votes given by lok sabha members were valid or not. The court stated that, the ability to answer such question is beyond the scope and control of the judiciary and judicial review presented by the constitution.

The court opined that:

“ In our opinion, these are not matters for judicial review in view of the specific provision in Article 122(1) of the Constitution”

Article 212 of the Constitution provides for the same rules of court interference in the matters of state legislature. The Hon’ble supreme court in M. S. M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha[9] held that the validity of proceedings inside the state legislature on the grounds of not following proper procedure cannot be challenged in court. The court stated that, the state legislature has its special jurisdiction, and no court can interfere into that. Furthermore, in the case of Kihoto Holloahan, stated that the state legislature has the same immunity from mere irregularities of procedure.

 The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Raja Ram Pal V Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha and Ors[10] laid down the twin test to contemplate Article 122 of the Constitution. The test was that unless there is illegality in the proceedings, the court would not interfere. The court stated that irregularities in procedure and unconstitutionality of the proceedings would be accepted as the text only mention the illegality of the proceeding to be barred.

It stated that “ Any attempt to read a limitation into Article 122 so as to restrict the court’s jurisdiction to examination of the Parliament’s procedure in case of unconstitutionality, as opposed to illegality would amount to doing violence to the constitutional text. Applying the principle of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (whatever has not been included has by implication been excluded), it is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on the touchstone of “irregularity of procedure” does not make taboo judicial review on findings of illegality or unconstitutionality”

In another landmark case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, it was held that the constitution ensures that there is adequate separation of powers as it is upto the legislature’s hand to decide their own proceedings. The ambit of the court would go to the extent of ensuring proper procedure has been established and if there are irregularities, such shouldn’t be illegal in nature.

In the recent case of Rojer Mathew (S) v. South Indian Bank Ltd[11], the court agreed with the previous interpretation of Article 122 as providing immunity to the legislature. It stated that India is governed by constitutional supremacy and judicial review is part of the basic structure of the constitution. It quoted :

“Any exclusion of judicial review has to be understood in the context in which it has been mandated under a specific provision of the constitution. Hence the provisions contained in article 122 which protect an alleged irregularity of procedure in the proceedings in Parliament being questioned cannot extend to a substantive illegality or a violation of a constitutional mandate.”

Conclusion :

In a country like India where democracy prevails from time to time, it is challenging to shun down the voices of MPs. However, the arbitrariness and the power vested upon the speaker of the houses creates a dynamic view for the definition of democracy. Although the aspect of suspension cannot be questioned by the judiciary, it is yet to be clarified whether the same is legal or not. As per the rules of the houses, the speaker has unprecedented power to suspend or withdraw any member he wishes to. The main conflict of interest among such thought is that the suspension can be purely based on the speaker’s opinion and thoughts. This on the outlook seems arbitrary and unreasonable. However, it is clear that the Court’s scope on challenging such is beyond the powers mentioned in the Constitution.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Sounak Mukhopadhyay, 141 Opposition Mps Suspended So Far : Are They Allowed To Enter Parliament? Check List Of Restriction, LIVEMINT (Dec 20, 2023) https://www.livemint.com/news/india/141-opposition-mps-suspended-so-far-are-they-allowed-to-enter-parliament-check-list-of-restrictions-11703057026922.html

[2] DHNS, Parliament, Democracy in suspension, DECCANHERALD (Dec 20,2023) https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/editorial/parliament-democracy-in-suspension-2818157

[3] PRS Legislative Research, Winter Session Snapshot: Record Number of Lok Sabha MPs Suspended; No Bills Sent to Committees, THEWIRE (Dec 23, 2023) https://thewire.in/government/winter-session-snapshot-record-number-of-lok-sabha-mps-suspended-no-bills-sent-to-committees

[4] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, 15th edition, https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/66/1/Rules_Procedure_LokSabha.pdf

[5] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), 9th edition https://cms.rajyasabha.nic.in/UploadedFiles/LegislativeSection/LegislativeRules/English_2052022english_3092021rules_pro.pdf

[6] (2010) 4 SCC 1

[7] (2014) SCC 2 178

[8] (1999) ALR 36 328

[9] AIR 1960 SC 1186

[10] (2007) SCC 3 184

[11] 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1456

0

Retrospective effect not applicable when a government resolution is passed after invalidation of constitutionality of the SEBC Act : Bombay HC on SEBC students applying in the category of EWS

Blog , , , ,

TITLE : Akshay Ashok Chaudhari v Government of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Nitin Jamdar and Hon’ble Justice Manjusha Deshpande

DATE :  22nd  December, 2023

CITATION : WP NO 2722 of 2023

FACTS

The Maharashtra State Reservation For Socially And Educationally Backward Class Act, 2018 was challenged for its constitutionality in the hon’ble court and was later challenged in SC which held it unconstitutional. The Act conferred a right on the individuals from the Maratha community, SEBC category, to 13% of total admissions in educational institutions and 16% of total appointments in direct recruitment for public services and posts within the State. After the interim order passed by the SC, the government of Maharashtra issued government resolution for the candidate who applied under SEBC category for public examination and were told to appear in the category of EWS (economically weaker section). This was challenged by the EWS category candidates and the tribunal upheld the challenge and disqualified those who appeared under SEBC category. The same is challenged in this hon’ble court by the SEBC candidates.

LAWS INVOLVED

Article 16(6) of the Constitution of India states that :

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.-

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

[(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category

ISSUES

Whether the tribunal erred in holding the position that SEBC candidates cannot apply in the category of EWS as per the Government Resolution

JUDGEMENT

The contentions of the petitioners were that the tribunal erred in holding the position that the GR was applied retrospectively. The respondents claimed that In the Advertisements pertaining to the recruitment processes, the vacancies for SEBC and EWS were notified separately, and even the procedures prescribed for procuring the certificates under the said categories were different and distinct under the various GRs.

The court held that the advertisements mentioned the specified number of posts allotted as  per the reservation and any changes would be communicated. The Advertisements inherently acknowledged that the reserved posts were not fixed and that any alterations would be duly notified. Further it held that applying the principle of retrospectivity requires consideration of the fact that GRs were issued under the executive power of the State to address perceived injustices for a specific class. The retrospective effect reasoning given by the tribunal was set aside by the court.

Subsequently, the tribunal’s order was set aside and the petition was allowed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

Article 14 of the constitution cannot be enforced on the basis of negative equality : Bombay HC quashed writ challenging the constitutionality of provisions of Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923.

Blog , , , ,

TITLE : Drishti Adventures Sports Private Ltd and Ors V State of Maharashtra

CITATION : W.P No 2158 of 2005

CORAM : Hon’ble justice G.S Kularkani and Hon’ble Jitendra Jain

DATE:  4th December, 2023

INTRODUCTION :

A writ petition was filed under Article 226 to strike down Sectio 3(1) and Section 3(5A) of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act,1923 as ultra vires of the constitution on the ground that activities about water based activities and amusement park activities are not distinguished and hence cannot be taxed.  

FACTS :

The respondent passed a resolution granting a lease of 500 sq. mts of land to Maharashtra Tourism and Development Corporation for the development of water sports activities. The lease was granted for a period of 10 years to develop manage and operate water sports activities on the basis of terms and conditions set.

On 14th March 2002, the petitioners addressed a letter to the MTDC requesting exemption from entertainment duty payment. On 26th March 2002, the petitioners addressed a letter to the respondents recording that the water sports activity does not fall under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923. On 27th March 2002, respondent issued a demand notice asking the petitioners to pay the entertainment duty of Rs.8,53,943.

The contention raised by the petitioners is that the respondents have not recovered entertainment duty from the persons purportedly carrying on/engaged in similar activities in the State of Maharashtra and therefore, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are discriminated and the petitioners too should not be made liable for payment of entertainment duty on its water sports activities.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court held that the petitioners contention is in the nature of negative equality, for the reason that the petitioner is questioning the action of the State Government in the levy of the entertainment duty only. The court held that it is unacceptable on the face of the record for the petitioner to claim that the money levied by paid on the way of protest. Additionally, it was held that such claim is not under the scope of Article 14 as the claim is negative equality whereas Article 14’s scope is purely upon positive equality.

Secondly, on the issue of Constitutionality of the said provisions the court held that there is a clear distinction between water based activities and amusement park activities. The legislative on that matter is clear. The petition was dismissed.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

Validity of the use of loudspeakers by religious establishments in the lens of the judiciary

Blog , , ,

Introduction :

The Gujarat HC[1] in its recent plea held that a 10-minute use of loudspeakers during Azan (religious Muslim prayer) to not be causing noise pollution. This has stirred a question of whether the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes is valid as per the law or not. Secondly, does the use of loudspeakers cause noise pollution and banning them is violative of the provisions of the Constitution.

Legislative View :

The term noise is derived from the term nausea in Latin and has been defined as an unwanted sound with a potential health hazard to health and communication. It is also to cause irreversible damage to the environment.

Section 2(a) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 includes noise in the definition of “air pollutant”. Noise Pollution is considered to be a public nuisance and is Punishable under Section 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 268 states that,

“268. A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right[2]”

The government of India drafted the regulations for controlling noise pollution in the Noise Pollution (Control and Regulation) Rules, 1999 which was enforced in the year 2000.

The rules laid down that the control of noise pollution is in the control of state governments and ensure that the noise level is as permitted. It also stipulated that loudspeakers and public address systems should not be used unless there is a prior authorization of use. Furthermore, it provided that a loudspeaker or public address system shall not be strictly used at night (10 PM- 6.00 AM) unless there is permission from the State Government.

Judicial Pronouncements :

The question that often arises is whether the ban of loudspeakers in religious institutions is whether it is against Article 25 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Article 25 gives the right to religion and Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression to the citizens.

The Kerala High Court in the case of P.A Jacob  v Superintendent of Police Kottayam[3] deduced that the use of loudspeakers in a Christianity denomination would disrupt the law and order by causing inconvenience to the other group of citizens. It held that an high volume noise would be against the principle of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution Of India.

Additionally, the Supreme Court in the case of Noise Pollution (V) Re[4], the hon’ble court held that freedom from noise pollution is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the constitution. It also relied on the Noise pollution rules to point that it is the State’s duty to ensure the noise level of a particular jurisdiction.

The Court further held that people cannot shelter under Article 19(1)(a) and justify noise pollution. It reasoned that although right to freedom of speech and expression are of fundamental in nature, it is not absolute and secondly, Article 21 supersedes Article 19 of the Constitution.

In another case of the Supreme Court, Church of God in India v. K.K.R majestic Colony Welfare Assn[5], it was held that no religion preaches to use voice amplifiers or loudspeakers to promote and propagate the religion. It laid down that religious establishments should keep in mind the society and the harm that may be caused because of the noise.

The Bombay High Court[6] in August 2016 held that the use of loudspeakers is not a fundamental right conferred under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was held that all religious places are bound by the noise pollution rules and must have permission from the appropriate authorities working for the state. The same was reiterated by the Punjab High Court[7] and ordered that,

“The States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are directed to ensure that no loudspeaker or public address system shall be used by any person including religious bodies in temples, mosques and gurdwaras without written permission of the authority even during day time, that too, by getting an undertaking that the noise level shall not exceed more than 10dB(A) peripheral noise level”

In recent times, the Madras High Court in the case of K.Bose V The district Collector[8] held that the state and its machinery should ensure that no individual or institution, whatsoever may be cause any noise pollution affection the rights of the residents living in that area.

A Public Interest Litigation was filed to prohibit the use of loudspeakers during Azan in the high court of Karnataka[9]. The question that raised was whether the use of loudspeakers during Azan violate the right to religion of people of other faiths. The court held in the negative and refused to order mosques to stop playing azan on loudspeakers.

However, the court directed the authorities to implement the Noise Pollution rules and the state government to take action regarding the same.

In the case of K.Ramesh V The State of Tamilnadu[10], the court stated that fundamental rights and fundamental duties go hand in hand. Any religious institution exercising their right to practice must be reminded off their duties towards other citizens, upon whose rights are also to be protected.

The court held that all religious institutions must adhere to the rules of the law for the purpose of conducting their respective religious activities.

“Any such religious activities affecting the rights of the other citizen and any infringement of rights under the Constitution of India must be viewed seriously and all appropriate actions are to be initiated in the event of any complaint or otherwise”

The same ratio was held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Afzal Ansari V  State of UP[11]. The court added Azan may be an essential and integral part of Islam but recitation of Azan through loudspeakers cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion to guarantee protection under Article 25.

The decision of Gujarat Hight Court[12] on rejecting the plea to ban Loudspeakers during Azan is based on the mere knowledge that the voice used during Azan is relatively slow and 10 minutes of the same wont cause harm and compared the same to the use of arati and drums in hindu temples. Therefore, the test to whether a noise constitute to pollution is dependent upon the decibel of the sound and not the usage per se. 

Conclusion

It can thereby be said that the controlling of noise pollution purely lies in the hand of the state. There is no exemption or gateway to escape the noise pollution rules. It is mandatory to seek permission before using loudspeakers from the state authority.

It is also to be noted that, Article 21 prevails as in a greater ambit, Right to life and personal liberty includes the right to live In a pollution free environment which also includes noise pollution. Although Article 25 and 19 are fundamentally important, the rights are not absolute and they pertain of certain rules and conditions.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Narsi Benwal, If 10 mins of Azaan causes noise pollution, what about loud music, bhajan in temples? Gujarat High Court rejects PIL against Azaan, BAR AND BENCH (Nov 29, 2023) https://www.barandbench.com/news/if-10-mins-azaan-causes-noise-pollution-what-loud-music-bhajan-temples-gujarat-high-court-rejects-pil-azaan.

[2] The Indian Penal Code, 1860

[3] AIR 1993 Ker 1

[4] (2005) 5 SCC 733

[5] (2007) 7 SCC 282

[6] Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v The State of Maharashtra (2016) SCCOnline Bom 332

[7] Reet Mohinder Singh Virk v State of Punjab & Ors (2023) PHHC 107430

[8] K.Bose V The district Collector , W.P (MD) No. 9099 of 2004

[9] Chandrashekhar R v State of Karnataka WP 10473/2022

[10] K.Ramesh V The State of Tamilnadu W.P No 21143 of 2014

[11] 2020 SCCOnline All 592

[12] Id,1

1 2 3