DOCSLIB.ORG

Landmark Judgements on Election Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

. LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON ELECTION LAW ( A Compilation of important and far-reaching Judgements pronounced by Supreme Court of India, High Courts and Election Commission of India ) VOLUME - I ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI Dr. M. S. Gill Chief Election Commissioner of India FOREWORD India has recently celebrated the Golden Jubilee of its independence, and is on the threshold of a new millenium. During the last 50 years of independence, which we, the people of India, adopted as the way of governance of our country, has moved from strength to strength. India is now regarded, by the international community, as one of the most stable democracies in the world. The Election Commission of India, an independent constitutional authority, has played a fundamental and critical role in the evolution of Indian democracy. In the discharge of its constitutional responsibility of conducting free, fair and peaceful elections in he country, the hands of the Election Commission have been strengthened by the Supreme Court of India, by its several landmark judgements, pronouncing upon the provisions of the constitution of India, and the laws relating to the elections. These judgements of the Supreme Court, the guiding stars, not only for the Courts, but also for the Election Commission, its electoral machinery, Governments at the Center and in the states, political parties and the candidates contesting elections. These judgements are reported in various law journals and reports, scattered over a period of 50 years. A growing need was being felt for a collection of these judgements, for facility of reference and guidance. Often, requests for copies of such judgements have also been received by the Commission from various international organisations and for a, interested in the study of elections and election laws of India. The Commission has made a discreet selection of some of these landmark judgements, and also a few judgements of High Courts, having a bearing on various aspects o election system and procedures in India, and put them together in this book. To this, we have added one of the more recent pronouncements of the Commission in connection with a dispute between splinters groups of a major national party. This decision of the Commission is of a historic nature, and has defined the procedures and principles in settling such disputes. I hope this book will meet the requirements of, and will be found useful by, every one, who has a role to play in the election field, including the Courts and Advocates. ( Dr. M. S. Gill ) June, 1999. New Delhi. VOLUME I Sl.No. CONTENTS Page No. 1. N. P. Ponnuswami Vs. The Returning Officer, 1 Namakkal Constituency (Supreme Court of India) 2. Election Commission of India Vs. Saka Venkata Rao 20 (Supreme Court of India) 3. Brundaban Nayak Vs. Election Commission of India 33 & Another (Supreme Court of India) 4. Meghraj Kothari Vs. Delimitation Commission & Others 45 (Supreme Court of India) 5. Pashupati Nath Singh Vs. Harihar Prasad Singh 62 (Supreme Court of India) 6. Sadiq Ali & Another Vs. Election Commission of India 70 & Others (Supreme Court of India) 7. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Shri Raj Narayan 96 (Supreme Court of India) 8. All Party Hill Leaders’ Conference Vs. 436 Captain W.A. Sangma (Supreme Court of India) 9. Narendra Madivalapa Kheni Vs. Manikarao Patil 465 & Others (Supreme Court of India) 10. Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election 484 Commissioner & Others (Supreme Court of India) VOLUME II Sl.No. CONTENTS Page No. 11. Jyoti Basu & Others Vs. Debi Ghosal & Others 561 (Supreme Court of India) 12. Km. Shradha Devi Vs. Krishna Chandra Pant & Others 572 (Supreme Court of India) 13. Pashupati Nath Sukul Vs. Nem Chandra Jain & Others 592 (Supreme Court of India) 14. A.C. Jose Vs. Sivan Pillai & Others 609 (Supreme Court of India) 15. Election Commission of India Vs. State of Haryana 625 (Supreme Court of India) 16. Samarath Lal Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Others 640 (Supreme Court of India) 17. (i) Lakshmi Charan Sen Vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman 642 & Others (ii) Election Commission of India Vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (Supreme Court of India) 18. Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh Vs. 682 Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa-cum-Returning Officer & Others (Supreme Court of India) 19. Indrajit Barua Vs. Election Commission of India 687 & Others (Supreme Court of India) 20. Kanhiya Lal Omar Vs. R.K. Trivedi & Others 700 (Supreme Court of India) 21. Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 715 (Supreme Court of India) 22. Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 746 (Supreme Court of India) 23. Election Commission of India Vs. Shivaji & Others 779 (Supreme Court of India) 24. B. Sundra Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India 790 (Supreme Court of India) 25. Shri Kihota Hollohon Vs. Mr. Zachilhu & Others 793 (Supreme Court of India) 26. Rama Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India 894 (Supreme Court of India) 27. Lal Babu Hussain & Others Vs. Electoral Registration Officer 901 (Supreme Court of India) 28. T.N. Seshan Vs. Union of India & Others 920 (Supreme Court of India) 29. Janata Dal (Samajwadi) Vs. Election Commission of India 959 (Supreme Court of India) 30. Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India 967 & Others. (Supreme Court of India) 31. Kanhaiya Prasad Sinha Vs. Union of India & Others 987 (Patna High Court) 32. N. Kristappa Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Others 996 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 33. P. Ravindra Reddy, P.Indrajit Reddy, P. Bayyapa Reddy Vs. 1010 Election Commission of India & Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 34. Om Prakash Srivastava alias Babloo Srivastava Vs 1027 Election Commission of India & Others (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench) 35. Harbans Singh Jalal Vs. Union of India & Others 1043 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) 36. Kotha Dass Goud Vs. The Returning Officer, 1059 41-Nalgonda P.C. and Election Commission of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 37. Arjun Singh Vs. The President, Indian National Congress 1067 (Election Commission of India) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA* (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Case No. 351 of 1951$ (Decision Dated 21st January, 1952) N.P. Ponnuswami .. Appellant Vs. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and four Others .. Respondents The Union of India The State of Madhya Bharat .. Interveners SUMMARY OF THE CASE The appellant filed his nomination paper for election to the (then) Madras Legislative Assembly from the Namakkal Assembly Constituency in Salem District. The Returning Officer, at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers on 28.11.1951, rejected his nomination paper on certain grounds. Aggrieved by the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper, the appellant moved the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Returning Officer to include his name in the list of validly nominated candidates. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer in view of the provisions of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution. The appellant then moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the view of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the word ‘election’ in Article 329 (b) connotes the entire electoral process commencing with the issue of the notification calling the election and culminating in the declaration of result, and that the electoral process once started could not be interfered with at any intermediary stage by Courts. Constitution of India (1950), Article 226 and 329 (b) – Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 – If excluded by Article 329 (b) in regard to order of Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper for election to the State Assembly. The High Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain petitions regarding improper rejection by the Returning Officer of nomination papers of candidates for election either to the House of Parliament or to the State Assembly. The Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has been excluded in regard to matters provided for an Article 329 which covers all ‘electoral matters’. The scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. Under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question. Article 329 (b) was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call the election in question, could be urged. It follows by necessary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other Court. Appeal under Article 132 of the Constitution of India from the Judgement and Order dated the 11th December, 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Subba Rao and Venkatarama Ayyar, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 746 of 1951. JUDGMENT Present:– M. Patanjali Sastri, Chief Justice, S. Fazl Ali, Mehrchand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, S.R.Das and N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ. N. Rajagopala Iyengar, Advocate for Appellant. R. Ganapathi Iyer, Advocate for the First Respondent. M. C. Setelvad, Attorney-General of India (G.N. Joshi, Advocate with him) for the Union of India. K. A. Chitale, Advocate-General, Madhya Bharat (G.N.
Recommended publications
  • 83 Calling Attention [RAJYA SABHA]

    83 Calling Attention [RAJYA SABHA]

    83 Calling Attention [RAJYA SABHA] ma matter if 84 urgent puhln- importance [Shri Lokanaih Misra.] CALLING ATTENTION TO A MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE of Delhi, he is the appropriate authority or the ACUTE FAMINE CONDITIONS Government of India is the appropriate PREVAILING IN ORISSA authority. SHRI R.K. KHADILKAR: I would like to SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA (West Bengal): give, with your permission, one clarification Sir, I beg to call the attention of the Minister of because the hon. Member, Mr. Misra, has Agriculture to the acute famine conditions raised it. As I have said, there was a question prevailing in Orissa and the reported starvation of a general nature and a supplementary was deaths as a result thereof and the assistance put about an establisnment. If I were to give a given by the Government of India to mitigate wrong information, I would have been the hardships of the famine affected people. admonished. [MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair] SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA (West Bengal): THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE Sir,. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (SHRI MR. CHAIRMAN: No, please. We cannot ANNASAHEB SHINDE): Mr. Deputy go on likethis. Please sit down, Mr. Bhupesh Chairman, Sir, . hon members will recall that Gupta. my senior colleague made a statement in the House on May 16, 1972, regarding drought SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: I am not asking conditions prevailing in some areas of Orissa. any question, but are you allowing a system of As he informed the House on that occasion clarification on clarification ? parts of Orissa were affected both by floods and MR.
  • Daily English Vocab Emergency Should Never Be Forgotten

    Daily English Vocab Emergency Should Never Be Forgotten

    Daily English Vocab PDF 26th June 2017 Emergency should never be forgotten Strange that in the process of selecting who should be the next President of India, the nation has forgotten the emergency imposed some forty two years ago. More than one lakh people were detained without trial. The media which could have reported the conditions prevailing was muzzled (म ुँह बंद करना या होना). Civil servants dutifully issued orders, which came through Sanjay Gandhi, the son of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who was the extra constitutional authority ruling the country in her name. The judiciary caved in and even upheld that Parliament could suspend the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Even the imposition of the emergency was justified. Only one judge, Justice H.R. Khanna, gave a dissenting judgment but he was superseded (हटा देना). It is another matter that the country punished Indira Gandhi, when she was ousted (बेदखल करना) from power, lock, stock and barrel, after elections were held. Similar was the fate of her son. What disappoints me is that the Supreme Court never passed a resolution or has done anything to register its disagreement with the judgment which gave the judiciary a bad name. Even now it is not too late. The Supreme Court has liberal judges on the bench. They can still dilute the situation by passing a resolution that its predecessor bench was wrong in endorsing (समर्थन करना) the emergency. At least the cabinet of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with a lawyer minister in Arun Jaitley, should say sorry on behalf of the government for the excesses committed by its predecessor during the emergency.
  • Elections Bill Explanatory Notes

    Elections Bill Explanatory Notes

    ELECTIONS BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the Elections Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 5 July 2021 (Bill 138). ● These Explanatory Notes have been provided by the Cabinet Office in order to assist the reader of the Bill. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. ● These Explanatory Notes explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice; provide background information on the development of policy; and provide additional information on how the Bill will affect existing legislation in this area. ● These Explanatory Notes might best be read alongside the Bill. They are not, and are not intended to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. Bill 138–EN 58/2 Table of Contents Subject Page of these Notes Overview of the Bill 3 Policy Background 5 Legal background 19 Territorial Extent and Application 22 Commentary on Provisions of Bill 25 Part 1: Administration and Conduct of Elections 25 Voter Identification 25 Postal and Proxy Voting 35 Undue Influence 46 Assistance with voting for persons with disabilities 51 Northern Ireland elections 52 Part 2: Overseas Electors and EU Citizens 62 Overseas Electors 62 Clause 10: Extension of franchise for parliamentary elections: British citizens overseas 62 Voting and Candidacy Rights of EU citizens 69 Clause 11: Voting and Candidacy Rights of EU citizens 69 Part 3: The Electoral Commission 84 The Electoral Commission 84 Criminal Proceedings 87 Part 4: Regulation of Expenditure 88 Notional expenditure
  • June Ank 2016

    June Ank 2016

    The Specter of Emergency Continues to Haunt the Country Mahi Pal Singh Forty one years ago this country witnessed people had been detained without trial under the the darkest chapter in the history of indepen- repressive Maintenance of Internal Security Act dent and democratic India when the state of (MISA), several high courts had given relief to emergency was proclaimed on the midnight of the detainees by accepting their right to life and 25th-26th June 1975 by Indira Gandhi, the then personal liberty granted under Article 21 and ac- Prime Minister of the country, only to satisfy cepting their writs for habeas corpus as per pow- her lust for power. The emergency was declared ers granted to them under Article 226 of the In- when Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the dian constitution. This issue was at the heart of Allahabad High Court invalidated her election the case of the Additional District Magistrate of to the Lok Sabha in June 1975, upholding Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known charges of electoral fraud, in the case filed by as the Habeas Corpus case, which came up for Raj Narain, her rival candidate. The logical fol- hearing in front of the Supreme Court in Decem- low up action in any democratic country should ber 1975. Given the important nature of the case, have been for the Prime Minister indicted in the a bench comprising the five senior-most judges case to resign. Instead, she chose to impose was convened to hear the case. emergency in the country, suspend fundamen- During the arguments, Justice H.R.
  • The County Election Commission

    The County Election Commission

    CTAS e-Li Published on e-Li (http://eli.ctas.tennessee.edu) October 01, 2021 The County Election Commission Dear Reader: The following document was created from the CTAS electronic library known as e-Li. This online library is maintained daily by CTAS staff and seeks to represent the most current information regarding issues relative to Tennessee county government. We hope this information will be useful to you; reference to it will assist you with many of the questions that will arise in your tenure with county government. However, the Tennessee Code Annotated and other relevant laws or regulations should always be consulted before any action is taken based upon the con- tents of this document. Please feel free to contact us if you have questions or comments regarding this information or any other e-Li material. Sincerely, The University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service 226 Capitol Blvd. Suite 400 Nashville, TN. 37219 615-532-3555 phone 615-532-3699 fax [email protected] www.ctas.tennessee.edu Page 1 of 7 Table of Contents The County Election Commission.............................................................. 3 Qualifications and Disqualifications........................................................ 3 Oath of Office and Organization............................................................. 3 Office Hours............................................................................................ 3 Meetings................................................................................................. 3 Duties-County
  • Volume 3 Issue Iv || May 2021 ||

    Volume 3 Issue Iv || May 2021 ||

    PIF – A++ ISSN 2581-6349 VOLUME 3 ISSUE IV || MAY 2021 || Email: [email protected] Website: www.jurisperitus.co.in 1 PIF – A++ ISSN 2581-6349 DISCLAIMER No part of this publication may be reproduced or copied in any form by any means without prior written permission of Editor-in-chief of Jurisperitus – The Law Journal. The Editorial Team of Jurisperitus holds the copyright to all articles contributed to this publication. The views expressed in this publication are purely personal opinions of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Editorial Team of Jurisperitus or Legal Education Awareness Foundation. Though all efforts are made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, Jurisperitus shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to oversight or otherwise. 2 PIF – A++ ISSN 2581-6349 EDITORIAL TEAM Editor-in-Chief ADV. SIDDHARTH DHAWAN Core-Team Member || Legal Education Awareness Foundation Phone Number + 91 9013078358 Email ID – [email protected] Additional Editor -in-Chief ADV. SOORAJ DEWAN Founder || Legal Education Awareness Foundation Phone Number + 91 9868629764 Email ID – [email protected] Editor MR. RAM AVTAR Senior General Manager || NEGD Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Phone Number +91 9968285623 Email ID: [email protected] SMT. BHARTHI KUKKAL Principal || Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi Ministry of Human Resource and Development Phone Number + 91 9990822920 Email ID: [email protected] MS. NIKHITA Assistant Manager || Deloitte India Phone Number +91 9654440728 Email ID: [email protected] MR. TAPAS BHARDWAJ Member || Raindrops Foundation Phone + 91 9958313047 Email ID: [email protected] 3 PIF – A++ ISSN 2581-6349 ABOUT US Jurisperitus: The Law Journal is a non-annual journal incepted with an aim to provide a platform to the masses of our country and re-iterate the importance and multi-disciplinary approach of law.
  • Colombia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments Through 2015

    Colombia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments Through 2015

    PDF generated: 16 Sep 2021, 17:03 constituteproject.org Colombia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2015 Subsequently amended © Oxford University Press, Inc. Translated by Max Planck Institute, with updates by the Comparative Constitutions Project Prepared for distribution on constituteproject.org with content generously provided by Oxford University Press. This document has been recompiled and reformatted using texts collected in Oxford’s Constitutions of the World and the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 16 Sep 2021, 17:03 Table of contents Preamble . 4 TITLE I: On Fundamental Principles . 4 TITLE II: On Rights, Guarantees, and Duties . 5 Chapter I: On Fundamental Rights . 5 Chapter II: On Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights . 10 Chapter III: On Collective Rights and the Environment . 20 Chapter IV: On the Protection and Application of Rights . 21 Chapter V: On Duties and Obligations . 23 TITLE III: On the Population and the Territory . 24 Chapter I: On Nationality . 24 Chapter II: On Citizenship . 25 Chapter III: On Aliens . 25 Chapter IV: On Territory . 25 TITLE IV: On Democratic Participation and Political Parties . 26 Chapter I: On the Forms of Democratic Participation . 26 Chapter II: On Political Parties and Political Movements . 27 Chapter III: On the Status of the Opposition . 30 TITLE V: On the Organization of the State . 31 Chapter I: On the Structure of the State . 31 Chapter II: On the Public Service . 32 TITLE VI: On the Legislative Branch . 35 Chapter I: On its Composition and Functions . 35 Chapter II: On its Sessions and Activities . 38 Chapter III: On Statutes .
  • Draft FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan

    Draft FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan

    Federal Election Commission Draft FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2018-2022 identifies the Commission’s strategic objectives and provides a road map for meeting those objectives. It also describes current challenges facing the FEC and addresses future trends that may affect the achievement of the agency’s goal. The mission of the FEC is to protect the integrity of the federal campaign finance process by providing transparency and fairly enforcing and administering federal campaign finance laws. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA/the Act) reflects a belief that democracy works best when voters can make informed decisions in the political process—decisions based in part on knowing the sources of financial support for federal candidates, political party committees and other political committees. As a result, the FEC’s first strategic objective is to inform the public about how federal campaigns and committees are financed. Public confidence in the political process also depends on the knowledge that participants in federal elections follow clear and well-defined rules and face consequences for non-compliance. Thus, the FEC’s second strategic objective focuses on the Commission’s efforts to promote voluntary compliance through educational outreach and to enforce campaign finance laws effectively and fairly. The third strategic objective is to interpret the FECA and related statutes, providing timely guidance to the public regarding the requirements of the law. The Commission also understands that organizational performance is driven by employee performance and that the agency cannot successfully achieve its mission without a high-performing workforce that understands expectations and delivers results.
  • The Indian Police Journal Vol

    The Indian Police Journal Vol

    Vol. 63 No. 2-3 ISSN 0537-2429 April-September, 2016 The Indian Police Journal Vol. 63 • No. 2-3 • April-Septermber, 2016 BOARD OF REVIEWERS 1. Shri R.K. Raghavan, IPS(Retd.) 13. Prof. Ajay Kumar Jain Former Director, CBI B-1, Scholar Building, Management Development Institute, Mehrauli Road, 2. Shri. P.M. Nair Sukrali Chair Prof. TISS, Mumbai 14. Shri Balwinder Singh 3. Shri Vijay Raghawan Former Special Director, CBI Prof. TISS, Mumbai Former Secretary, CVC 4. Shri N. Ramachandran 15. Shri Nand Kumar Saravade President, Indian Police Foundation. CEO, Data Security Council of India New Delhi-110017 16. Shri M.L. Sharma 5. Prof. (Dr.) Arvind Verma Former Director, CBI Dept. of Criminal Justice, Indiana University, 17. Shri S. Balaji Bloomington, IN 47405 USA Former Spl. DG, NIA 6. Dr. Trinath Mishra, IPS(Retd.) 18. Prof. N. Bala Krishnan Ex. Director, CBI Hony. Professor Ex. DG, CRPF, Ex. DG, CISF Super Computer Education Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science, 7. Prof. V.S. Mani Bengaluru Former Prof. JNU 19. Dr. Lalji Singh 8. Shri Rakesh Jaruhar MD, Genome Foundation, Former Spl. DG, CRPF Hyderabad-500003 20. Shri R.C. Arora 9. Shri Salim Ali DG(Retd.) Former Director (R&D), Former Spl. Director, CBI BPR&D 10. Shri Sanjay Singh, IPS 21. Prof. Upneet Lalli IGP-I, CID, West Bengal Dy. Director, RICA, Chandigarh 11. Dr. K.P.C. Gandhi 22. Prof. (Retd.) B.K. Nagla Director of AP Forensic Science Labs Former Professor 12. Dr. J.R. Gaur, 23 Dr. A.K. Saxena Former Director, FSL, Shimla (H.P.) Former Prof.
  • Electoral Law an Interim Report

    Electoral Law an Interim Report

    Electoral Law An Interim Report 4 February 2016 Law Commission Scottish Law Commission Northern Ireland Law Commission ELECTORAL LAW A Joint Interim Report © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence: visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU; or email [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/electoral-law/ www.scotlawcom.gov.uk ii THE LAW COMMISSIONS The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965. The Northern Ireland Law Commission was set up by section 50 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Each Commission has the purpose of promoting reform of the law. The Law Commissioners for England and Wales are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Bean, Chairman Professor Nick Hopkins Stephen Lewis Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Pentland, Chairman Caroline Drummond David Johnston QC Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven The Chief Executive is Malcolm McMillan The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Law Commission is: The Honourable Mr Justice Maguire The terms of
  • LOK SABHA DEBATES (English Version)

    LOK SABHA DEBATES (English Version)

    Ninth Series, Vol. X No, 23 Thursday, Oct,4,1990 Asvina12, 1990/1912(Saka) LOK SABHA DEBATES (English Version) Third Session (Ninth Lok Sabha) LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI Price: Rs., 50,00 C ONTENTS [Ninth Series, Vol. X, Third Session -Second Part, 199011912 iSaka)] No. 23, Thursday, October 4 ,1990/Asvina 12,1912 (Saka) Co l u mn s Re. Adjournment Motion 3—7 Police atrocities in dealing with students’ agitation against Government’s decision on Mandal Commission Report and resort to self-immolation by students against the decision Papers Laid on the Table 8—9 Motion Under Rule 388— Adopted 10 Suspension of Rule 338 Shri Mufti Mohammad Sayeed 10 Constitution (Seventy-sixth Amendment) Bill (Amendment of Article 356) -Introduced 10—11 Shri Mufti Mohammad Sayeed 10-11 Motion to consider 11-23 Shri Mufti Mohammad Sayeed 11 Clauses 2 and 1 23—39 Motion to Pass 39-59 Shri Mufti Mohammad Sayeed 39, 4 5 -4 6 Shri A. K. Roy 39—40 Dr. Thambi Durai 40—42 Shrimati Bimal Kaur Khalsa 42—44 Shri Inder Jit 4 4 -4 5 Re. Killing of innocent persons and burning of houses at Handwara in Jammu & Kashmir on 1st October, 1990 61—65 Re. Attention and care given by the Indian High Commission in London to Late Cuef Justice of India Shri Sabyasachi Mukherjee during his iltaess 65—111 Re. Setting up of Development Boards for Vidarbha, Marath- wada and other regions in Maharashtra. H I—116 (0 1 ^ 1 18S/N1>/91 (ii) Co l u m n s Adjournment Motion 117—206 Police atrocities in dealing with students’ dotation against Government’s decision on Mandal Commission Report and resort to self-immolation by students against the decision Shri B.
  • CONTEMPORARY ISSUES in MEDIA ETHICS Boctor of $I)Tios(Opi)

    CONTEMPORARY ISSUES in MEDIA ETHICS Boctor of $I)Tios(Opi)

    CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN MEDIA ETHICS ABSTRACT THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF Boctor of $I)tIos(opI)p IN PHILOSOPHY By MD. EHSAN Under the Supervision of M. MUQIM DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH (INDIA) 2009 ABSTRACT Twenty first century is the century of knowledge and information. Knowledge is the power. Media such as newspapers, radio, television, magazines, internet etc. are the primary and central source of information and knowledge of this fast moving world. Hence, media enjoys enormous power and exerts tremendous impacts on our lives. Media as a powerful institution not only disseminates information and knowledge rather it influences our lives, our political systems and our society as a whole. It shapes our opinions, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. It affects our decision and judgment about family, home, education, institution etc. through information and knowledge it provides. So much so that it fashions our tastes and moral standards, and socializes our younger generation. Furthermore, media has got important role to play in democracy. It is media which helps democracy become 'of and 'by' the people. It wheels democracy. It facilitates democracy by making interaction between the governed and the governor. Moreover, it is considered to be the back bone as well as the fourth pillar of democracy. * I am using media as a singular noun In view of the enormous power implicit in media, its tremendous impacts on our lives and on our governing systems, and in view of its deep penetration in our society the need arises to use it with great caution and control.