TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a statement recorded in a judicial judgment as to what transpired before the court can be contradicted by affidavit or later submissions; (ii) whether, in deciding sanction for the prosecution of a Chief Minister, the Governor should act in his own discretion rather than on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Issue (i): Whether a statement recorded in a judicial judgment as to what transpired before the court can be contradicted by affidavit or later submissions
Analysis: The judgment record of what occurred in court was treated as conclusive. A party cannot, in a later proceeding, contradict the statement of the judges by affidavit, oral assertion, or other evidence. If the record is thought to be mistaken, the proper course is to seek correction before the same judge while the matter is still fresh. In rare cases, a concession may be withdrawn on the ground of legal mistake and injustice, but the fact of making the concession as recorded cannot be impeached elsewhere.
Conclusion: The recorded concession could not be denied or contradicted in the special leave proceeding.
Issue (ii): Whether, in deciding sanction for the prosecution of a Chief Minister, the Governor should act in his own discretion rather than on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers
Analysis: The case concerned sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister for alleged corruption-related offences. In that setting, the Council of Ministers would be directly interested in the decision, and the doctrine of necessity justified the Governor's acting independently. The Court treated the concession before the High Court as correctly made and held that propriety required the Governor to decide the question himself rather than on ministerial advice. Articles 163(2) and 163(3) did not warrant interference in the circumstances presented.
Conclusion: The Governor was held to be entitled, and as a matter of propriety required, to decide the sanction question in his own discretion.
Final Conclusion: Special leave was declined, and the challenged view that the Governor should act independently in this situation was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A judicial record of what transpired before the court is conclusive and cannot be contradicted in later proceedings, and where the Council of Ministers is directly interested in deciding whether to sanction prosecution of a Chief Minister, the Governor may act in his own discretion under the doctrine of necessity.
TaxTMI 
