NDLI: Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India – Art.32
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971) Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Case Disposed Off
Headnote	Constitution of India – Art.32 – Judge Loya death case –Writ petitions seeking inquiry into the circumstances of the death ofthe Judge who was presiding over the criminal trial wherein one ofthe accused was the National President of the Bharatiya JanataParty (then Minister of State for Home in the State of Gujarat)–Petitions based on two articles published in the “Caravan” magazineraising suspicion about unnatural death of the Judge as opposedto his natural death due to heart attack – Petitioners inter aliaquestioned the conduct of the colleagues of the Judge in attendingto him – Held: Issue in the present case is whether the Judge died anatural or unnatural death – Conduct of his colleagues in attendingto him is not in question – To attribute motives to his colleagueswho were with him is absurd, if not motivated – They did their bestunder the circumstances, acting entirely in good faith – There is noreason to doubt the clear and consistent statements of the saidjudicial officers – Documentary material on record indicates thatthe Judge died due to natural causes – Members of the family ofthe Judge disassociated themselves from the statements attributedto them in the Caravan publication – No ground to hold that therewas a reasonable suspicion about the cause or circumstances ofdeath which would merit a further inquiry – Conduct of thepetitioners and the intervenors lack bona fides, scandalizes theprocess of Court and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt –However, criminal contempt proceedings are chosen not to beinitiated – No merit in the writ petitions – Contempt of Courts Act,1971.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.174 – Inquest reportunder – Purpose of – Writ petitions seeking inquiry into thecircumstances of the death of the Judge who was presiding over the criminal trial wherein one of the accused was the National Presidentof the Bharatiya Janata Party (then Minister of State for Home inthe State of Gujarat) – Plea of writ petitioners that there was noinvestigation/inquiry carried out by the police in the inquest u/s.174– Held: Purpose of holding an inquest is limited – Inquest reportdoes not constitute substantive evidence – Hence, matters relatingto how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him and underwhat circumstances are beyond the scope of the report – Inquestreport is primarily intended to ascertain the nature of the injuriesand the apparent cause of death.Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. IX, rr.1, 2 – Crossexaminationunder, of the deponent of an affidavit – Petitionersquestioned the discreet enquiry conducted by the State followingthe articles published in Caravan magazine raising suspicion as tounnatural death of the Judge who was presiding over the criminaltrial wherein one of the accused was the National President of theBharatiya Janata Party (then Minister of State for Home in the Stateof Gujarat) – Plea of petitioners that doctors and judicial officerswhose statements were recorded during the course of enquiry befirst directed to file an affidavit and then allowed to be crossexamined– Held: Under Or.IX of the 2013 Rules discretion is vestedin the court to allow cross-examination of a person who has filedan affidavit – Petitioners moved Supreme Court in a petition filedin public interest and their position is that of a relator who seeks tobring a grievance to the attention of the Court for the purpose ofseeking court mandated inquiry – None of the persons whose crossexaminationhas been sought is a witness in the present proceedings– Petitioners cannot assert as of right that they should be allowedto cross-examine – No justification to allow the request for crossexamination– Constitution of India – Art.32.Public Interest Litigation – Purpose of, and its misuse –Discussed – Constitution of India – Arts.32 and 226.Judicial Discipline – Recusal of Judges – Held: A decisionas to whether a judge should hear a case is a matter of consciencefor the judge.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 369
Petitioner	Tehseen Poonawalla
Respondent	Union Of India And Anr.
SCR	[2018] 9 S.C.R. 1
Judgement Date	2018-04-19
Case Number	19

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Others

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Vs. Union of India

People`s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Un10n of India and Anr.

Pankaj Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others

Romila Thapar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Kehar Singh and Anr. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Angrej Kaur Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Common Cause ( A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India & Another

Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Others

Subhan Tours & Travel Services Vs. Union of India

People`s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Un10n of India and Anr.

Pankaj Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others

Romila Thapar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Kehar Singh and Anr. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Angrej Kaur Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Common Cause ( A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India & Another

Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and Anr.