TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Writ petition dismissed against Governor citing immunity under Constitution Article 361. Contentions under Prevention of Corruption Act emphasized.</h1> <h3>Dr. J. Jayalalitha Versus Dr. M. Channa Reddy</h3> The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling it was not maintainable against the Governor due to immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition against the Governor.2. Validity of the sanction order for prosecution.3. Allegations of mala fides and violation of fundamental rights.4. Public interest and consequences of prosecuting a Chief Minister.5. Procedural aspects of sanction and investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Against the Governor:The court examined whether a writ petition against the Governor is maintainable, referencing the earlier Division Bench ruling in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu (1994)1 L.W. 145, which held that a writ petition against the Governor is not maintainable due to the immunity provided under Article 361 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that Article 361 provides absolute immunity to the Governor, and this immunity extends to both bona fide and mala fide acts. The court also referenced the judgment in Mathialagan v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (1973)1 M.L.J. 131, which supported this view. The petitioner's counsel attempted to distinguish the present case from the earlier ruling and argued for reconsideration based on the Supreme Court's ruling in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. However, the court found that the Bommai case did not address Article 361 and thus did not warrant reconsideration of the earlier ruling.2. Validity of the Sanction Order for Prosecution:The petitioner challenged the validity of the Governor's order granting sanction for prosecution under Section 169 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court reiterated that the sanction to prosecute is an administrative order and does not affect the rights of any party. It referenced several judgments, including Rameshwar Bhatia v. The State of Assam and Biswabhusan Naik v. The State of Orissa, which clarified that sanction is a permission rather than a command and does not need to be based on legal evidence. The court also noted that the Governor's order does not cast any stigma on the petitioner and that the petitioner has ample opportunity to raise contentions in the proceedings under the Act if initiated.3. Allegations of Mala Fides and Violation of Fundamental Rights:The petitioner alleged mala fides on the part of the Governor and claimed that the sanction order violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found these allegations premature and noted that the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal stated that allegations of mala fides must be substantiated with evidence collected during the investigation. The court also referenced State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, which held that an order sanctioning prosecution is an administrative act and does not violate Article 21. The court concluded that the petitioner's fundamental rights were not affected at this stage.4. Public Interest and Consequences of Prosecuting a Chief Minister:The petitioner argued that prosecuting a Chief Minister would harm public interest. The court disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Kazi Lhendun Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which emphasized the importance of judicially determining allegations of corruption against public officials to maintain public interest and morality. The court also referenced Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, which stated that individual interests must be subservient to social interests.5. Procedural Aspects of Sanction and Investigation Under the Prevention of Corruption Act:The petitioner contended that there could be no private complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that sanction should not have been granted before an investigation. The court rejected these arguments, referencing A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which upheld the maintainability of private complaints under the Act. The court also cited D. Lakshmi Narayanan v. V. Narayana, which clarified that sanction could be granted before an investigation.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not maintainable based on the earlier Division Bench ruling in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu. The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding the validity of the sanction order, allegations of mala fides, violation of fundamental rights, and public interest. The court emphasized that the petitioner could raise her contentions in the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act if initiated. The court also expressed displeasure at certain media practices during the pendency of the case and warned against contemptuous publications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
