http://WWW.UNIVERSALCOACHINGCENTRE.IN
UNIVERSALCOACHINGCENTRE 561b573d4ec0a42834f7bccc False 1687 0
OK
background image not found
Found Update results for
'lawyer supporters'
4
The Supreme Court laid down norms for state governments to select public prosecutors and government advocates and limited the earlier discretion they had to accommodate lawyer supporters of the ruling party. in choosing government lawyers, the state must look for competence and not appoint anyone with a criminal background. Though appointment of PPs and several layers of government advocates for district courts in Uttar Pradesh was in question, the judgment of Justices Vikramjit Sen and A M Sapre will have a salutary effect on other states too. The bench said, “It is beyond cavil that it is in the interest of the dispensation of criminal justice that competent counsel possessing integrity should alone be appointed, since otherwise, there is a strong miscarriage of justice. In choosing them, the state will not only have to be satisfied of their forensic competence, but also that they are bereft of any criminal antecedents.” It clarified that strict selection process to be appointed by states in choosing government lawyers did not mean there would be any security of tenure for them. Justice Sen said, “The state, like any other litigant, must have the freedom to appoint counsel in whom it reposes trust and confidence. The only expectation is that the choice made by the state should not be such as could defeat the sacred and onerous responsibility of ensuring that justice is meted out to all citizens.” Referring to an earlier judgment in Johri Mal case, the bench said the SC had categorically rejected the claim of a lawyer for continuous renewal of appointment as a government advocate. “We entirely agree with this exposition of law, ” the bench said. The bench agreed with the apex court’s Johri Mal judgment, in which it had said district counsel did not have a statutory right for renewal of tenure and the state government enjoyed discretionary power in this regard. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal 2004 1. A distinction is to be borne in mind between appointment of a Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor on the one hand, and Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other. So far as Assistant Public Prosecutors are concerned, they are employees of the State. They hold Civil posts. They are answerable for their conduct to higher statutory authority. Their appointment is governed by the service rules framed by the respective State Government. 2. The appointment of the Public Prosecutors, on the other hand, is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or the executive instructions framed by the State governing the terms of their appointment. Proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India is not applicable in their case. Their appointment is a tenure appointment. Public Prosecutors, furthermore retain the character of legal practitioners for all intent and purport. They, of course, discharge public functions and certain statutory powers are also conferred upon them. Their duties and functions are onerous but the same would not mean that their conditions of appointment are governed by any statute or statutory rule. Article 309 of Constitution “Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State”.
Best IAS And KAS Coaching Centre In Bangalore PIL once filed & heard, cannot be withdrawn: SC Supreme Court said , a Public Interest Litigation PIL, once filed & heard, cannot be withdrawn. The observation came during a hearing on a lawyer’s plea that he was getting threats for filing a PIL seeking entry of girls and women in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. The court noted this when Naushad Ahmed Khan, President of Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, which has filed the PIL on Sabarimala issue, sought urgent hearing of the matter. He said he has received 500 threatening phone calls in recent times and asked to take back the PIL. What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)? Public-Interest Litigation is litigation for the protection of the public interest. In Indian law, Article 32 of the Indian constitution contains a tool which directly joins the public with judiciary. Article 32: The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. A PIL may be introduced in a court of law by the court itself (suo motu), rather than the aggrieved party or another third party. For the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, it is not necessary for the victim of the violation of his or her rights to personally approach the court. In a PIL, the right to file suit is given to a member of the public by the courts through judicial activism. The member of the public may be a non-governmental organization (NGO), an institution or an individual. It was in the case of SP Gupta vs Union of India that the Supreme Court of India defined the term Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Context. The 38th Chief Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia, has stated that substantial fines would be imposed on litigants filing frivolous PILs. PIL has been successful in making official authorities accountable to NGOs.
Best IAS And KAS Coaching Centre In Bangalore The Supreme Court said: No temple or governing body can bar a woman from entering the famous Sabarimala shrine in Kerala where lakhs of devotees throng annually to worship. When the Devaswom Board countered that the prohibition was based on custom followed for the past half century, court asked what proof the Board had to show that women did not enter the sanctum sanctorum over 1500 years ago. Court observed that the Constitution rejects discrimination on the basis of age, gender and caste. The petition filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association and five women lawyers seeking a direction to allow entry of women into the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple without age restriction. Women in the age group 10-50 are not allowed entry. The apex court had issued notice in the case way back in 2006. The petition had contended that women, aged between 10 and 50, touching the idol was considered an act of desecration. Backthen: An attempt was made to prosecute Kannada actor Jaimala on the plea of desecration following her disclosure that she entered the sanctum sanctorum and touched the idol in 1987. The priests conducted a special ritual to purify the idol. The Kerala High Court dismissed the charges filed by police in the controversial Sabarimala “astrological finding” case, which included Kannada actress Jaimala among the accused in 2012. The ban was enforced under Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 It states “women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship”. The Kerala High Court had upheld the ban in 1991 and directed the Devaswom Board to implement it. The petition contended that discrimination in matters of entry into temples was neither a ritual nor ceremony associated with Hindu religion. Such discrimination was totally anti-Hindu. The religious denomination could only restrict entry into the sanctum sanctorum and could not ban entry into the temple, making a discrimination on the basis of sex. It had sought quashing of the Rule contending that the ban was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution. They wanted guidelines laid down in matters of gender inequality in religious practices at places of worship. About Sabarimala: It is a Hindu pilgrimage centre located at the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghat mountain ranges of Pathanamthitta District, Perunad grama panchayat in Kerala. It is one of the largest annual pilgrimages in the world, with an estimated over 100 million devotees visiting every year. Sabarimala is believed to be the place where the Hindu god Ayyappanmeditated after killing the powerful demoness Mahishi. Sabarimala is linked to Hindu pilgrimage, predominantly for men of all ages. Females who menstruate (usually between the ages of approximately 12 and 50) are not allowed to enter the temple, since the story attributed to Ayyappa prohibits the entry of the women in the menstrual age group. This is because Ayyappan is a Bramhachari (celibate). Administration and legal duties is managed by Travancore Devasvom Board, an affiliate authority of Government of Kerala.
Best IAS And KAS Coaching Centre In Bangalore PIL once filed & heard, cannot be withdrawn: SC Supreme Court said , a Public Interest Litigation PIL, once filed & heard, cannot be withdrawn. The observation came during a hearing on a lawyer’s plea that he was getting threats for filing a PIL seeking entry of girls and women in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. The court noted this when Naushad Ahmed Khan, President of Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, which has filed the PIL on Sabarimala issue, sought urgent hearing of the matter. He said he has received 500 threatening phone calls in recent times and asked to take back the PIL. What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)? Public-Interest Litigation is litigation for the protection of the public interest. In Indian law, Article 32 of the Indian constitution contains a tool which directly joins the public with judiciary. Article 32: The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. A PIL may be introduced in a court of law by the court itself (suo motu), rather than the aggrieved party or another third party. For the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, it is not necessary for the victim of the violation of his or her rights to personally approach the court. In a PIL, the right to file suit is given to a member of the public by the courts through judicial activism. The member of the public may be a non-governmental organization (NGO), an institution or an individual. It was in the case of SP Gupta vs Union of India that the Supreme Court of India defined the term Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Context. The 38th Chief Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia, has stated that substantial fines would be imposed on litigants filing frivolous PILs. PIL has been successful in making official authorities accountable to NGOs.
1
false