AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 87

7. P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Artinachaiam, AIR 1980 SC 856 (858-859).

In this writ petition the petitioner challenged the leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution and subsequent proceedings as violative of Article 21, and hence unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was called upon to lay down the scope of Articles 136 and 21 of the Constitution. The court, while discussing the matter, said that Article 21 in its sublime brevity, guards human liberty by insisting on the prescription of "procedure established by law", and not a "fiat" as a "sine qua non for deprivation of personal freedom". And the procedure so established must be fair, not fanciful nor formal nor flimsy Maneka Gandhi's case was referred to in this context. In express terms, Article 136 does not confer on a party a right to appeal as such, but it confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases.

(On the facts, leave to appeal already granted was upheld).



Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys