Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2010 (11) TMI 944 - SC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Article 317 reference permits connected additional material, but proven selection irregularities and non-cooperation can amount to misbehaviour. In a Presidential Reference under Article 317(1), the Court may examine explanatory, incidental or intrinsically connected additional material, but not ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Article 317 reference permits connected additional material, but proven selection irregularities and non-cooperation can amount to misbehaviour.

                          In a Presidential Reference under Article 317(1), the Court may examine explanatory, incidental or intrinsically connected additional material, but not independent charges having no nexus with the original reference. It held that no separate constitutional qualification was prescribed for appointment as Chairman or Member of a Public Service Commission, so the allegation of inadequate qualification and stature was not proved. By contrast, selection irregularities, use of a bogus experience certificate, withholding of records, non-cooperation with investigators and resistance to disclosure were established on a preponderance of probabilities and amounted to misbehaviour. The independent charges outside the reference were excluded from consideration.




                          Issues: (i) Whether, in a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court could examine explanatory, incidental, supplementary or subsequently surfaced charges and evidence beyond the original Presidential Reference; (ii) whether Charge 1, alleging inadequate qualification, experience and stature for appointment as Chairman or Members of the Public Service Commission, was proved as misbehaviour; (iii) whether Charges 2 to 5, 8 and 9, relating to selection irregularities, non-cooperation with investigating agencies, withholding of records and related conduct, were established as misbehaviour warranting removal; and (iv) whether Charges 6 and 7 were within the scope of the Presidential Reference.

                          Issue (i): Whether, in a reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court could examine explanatory, incidental, supplementary or subsequently surfaced charges and evidence beyond the original Presidential Reference.

                          Analysis: Article 317(1) confers an advisory and limited jurisdiction, but the inquiry is into the facts themselves and not merely into the allegations as originally stated. The constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court Rules and the nature of the office permit examination of charges that are linked, inter-dependent, explanatory or intrinsically connected with the referred allegations. The Court held that subsequent facts and additional materials having a direct bearing on the matter could be considered, but entirely new and unconnected charges could not be introduced if they would prejudice the respondents.

                          Conclusion: The Court could examine explanatory and intrinsically connected additional charges and evidence, but not independent charges having no direct nexus with the Presidential Reference.

                          Issue (ii): Whether Charge 1, alleging inadequate qualification, experience and stature for appointment as Chairman or Members of the Public Service Commission, was proved as misbehaviour.

                          Analysis: Article 316 of the Constitution of India prescribes no specific educational qualification, experience or professional stature for appointment as Chairman or Member, except that as nearly as may be one-half of the members must have held office under the Government for at least ten years. The Court held that no constitutional qualification was breached, and the charge rested on vague assertions rather than cogent evidence. The law does require high standards of integrity and suitability for such offices, but that policy consideration cannot be converted by the Court into a new eligibility prescription for the office.

                          Conclusion: Charge 1 was not proved and did not establish misbehaviour.

                          Issue (iii): Whether Charges 2 to 5, 8 and 9, relating to selection irregularities, non-cooperation with investigating agencies, withholding of records and related conduct, were established as misbehaviour warranting removal.

                          Analysis: On the evidence, the Court found that the selection and recommendation of Pradeep Sangwan were tainted by serious irregularities, including acceptance of a bogus experience certificate, ante-dated processing, failure to scrutinise the candidate's eligibility and an unjustified recommendation despite complaint and supporting material. The Court further found that the Chairman and Members adopted a non-cooperative stance, withheld records from the investigating agencies, passed resolutions to resist disclosure, and persisted despite judicial directions. The privilege claim was held to lack bona fides, and the collective conduct was found to have lowered public confidence and fallen below the standards expected of constitutional functionaries. Applying the standard of reasonable preponderance of probabilities, the Court concluded that these acts amounted to misbehaviour under Article 317(1).

                          Conclusion: Charges 2 to 5, 8 and 9 were established, and the respondents were found guilty of misbehaviour on those counts.

                          Issue (iv): Whether Charges 6 and 7 were within the scope of the Presidential Reference.

                          Analysis: Charges 6 and 7 were held to be new and independent allegations, not incidental or explanatory to the referred charges and not directly emerging from the record placed before the President. The Court held that examining them would go beyond the permissible scope of the inquiry and could prejudice the respondents.

                          Conclusion: Charges 6 and 7 were beyond the scope of the Presidential Reference and were not examined on merits.

                          Final Conclusion: The inquiry culminated in a finding that the established charges justified removal of the concerned Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission from office on the ground of misbehaviour, while the inadequate-qualification charge failed and the two independent extra charges were excluded from consideration.

                          Ratio Decidendi: In a Presidential Reference under Article 317(1), the Court may consider additional or subsequently surfaced charges and evidence if they are explanatory, incidental or intrinsically connected with the referred allegations, and removal may be recommended where the conduct of a constitutional functionary fails the standard of integrity and rectitude judged on reasonable preponderance of probabilities.


                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found