https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290840 A writ petition for quo warranto against a Governor could not be sustained where the only foundation was an unproved newspaper report. Such reports were treated as hearsay and secondary evidence, and the Court held that no judicial notice could be taken of their contents without independent admissible proof. As no material aliunde was produced to support the allegations, they could not be acted upon. The Court also reiterated that Article 361 of the Constitution affords the Governor constitutional immunity, which is not displaced merely by allegations of mala fides. On that material, the petition was held not maintainable and failed on merits. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:02:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290840 A writ petition for quo warranto against a Governor could not be sustained where the only foundation was an unproved newspaper report. Such reports were treated as hearsay and secondary evidence, and the Court held that no judicial notice could be taken of their contents without independent admissible proof. As no material aliunde was produced to support the allegations, they could not be acted upon. The Court also reiterated that Article 361 of the Constitution affords the Governor constitutional immunity, which is not displaced merely by allegations of mala fides. On that material, the petition was held not maintainable and failed on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290840