Results of plagiarism analysis from 2023-03-29 05:01 UTC

10.7% S.P.Gupta Pesident of India.pdf

Date: 2023-03-29 05:00 UTC

 All sources 8  Internet sources 8

 www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1998/Privileges-and-Immunities-In-Suits-of-The-State.html
[0]
4.4% 5 matches

 aishwaryasandeep.com/2022/01/19/state-privilege-in-india/
[1]
2.8% 4 matches

 www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1630/Right-To-Privacy-Under-Article-21-and-the-Related-Conflicts.html
[2]
2.1% 3 matches

 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjan_Gogoi
[3]
2.4% 5 matches

 www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6351-government-privileges-not-to-produce-documents.html
[4]
0.9% 3 matches

 www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6374-covid-19-and-fragility-of-press-freedom-in-india.html
[5]
1.4% 2 matches

 testbook.com/question-answer/which-of-the-following-is-specifically-not-mention--606833b028180b65c16f7628
[6]
1.0% 1 matches

 www.quora.com/Who-exercises-more-power-and-control-Chief-Justice-or-Prime-Minister-of-India
[7]
0.6% 1 matches

7 pages, 1386 words

PlagLevel: 10.7% selected / 11.5% overall

17 matches from 8 sources, of which 8 are online sources.

Settings

Data policy: Compare with web sources, Check against my documents

Sensitivity: Medium

Bibliography: Consider text

Citation detection: Reduce PlagLevel

Whitelist: --
NAME: RAKESH PRAKASH TORE

CLASS: LLB 3 YEAR V Semester (2022-23)

ROLL NO: (38)

SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

COLLEGE: RTMNU Dr.Babasaheb Ambedakar College of law Nagpur.

Case Analysis S.P Gupta V. President of India

Petitioner
S.P.Gupta

Respondent

President of India

Case type
Transfer of case (civil) AIR (1982 SC 149)

Date of Judgment

30 December 1981

Bench
7- judge bench comprising of a) Justice P.N. Bhagawati,) Justice A.C.Gupta)

Justice S.M.Fazal Ali,) Justice V.D.Tulazapuraker) Justice D.A Desai) Justice

R.S. Pathak) Justice F.s. Venkataramaiah

 FACTS OF THE CASE:
[3]
A bunch of written petitions were filed in various high courts across the country, and one

A writ of mandamus was also filed in the Supreme Court of India, which was referred to as a
"writ of mandamus."

The great constitution is important for affecting the independence of the judiciary.

A writ was filed in response to the non-appointment of two judges and the transfer of

As a judge, one of the important issues in the foregoing case was regarding the validity of

The central government's order prohibited the appointment of two judges to establish in this

Claim; the petitioner's government sought the disclosure of a correspondence between the law

Minister, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High court, and the Chief Justice of India.

However, the respondent denied the claim and sought the protection of

Correspondence under Article 72(2) of the Constitution of India, which says that any

Advice tendered by the council of ministers to the precedent of India shall not be the
[1]
The subject of judicial scrutiny. furthermore, respondents claimed the validity and

Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which states that evidence

It is not possible to provide information derived from unpublished official records on state
affairs without Permission from the head of the relevant department.
PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION:

According to Article 124 of the Indian constitution, the number of judges decided by

Parliament as per the law. Currently, the number of judges is 33, apart from the judges

In the Supreme Court will be appointed by the president and will hold office until the Age of 65
years.

Article 217 sets out the conditions for the appointment of a judge in the high court.

The appointment will be made by the president. The recommendation of the Candidates will be
given by collegiums formed for this purpose that a judge will not be qualified for the
appointment in the following cases.

* If he is not a citizen of India or

*he does not have an experience of 10 years in the judicial office in the territory

Or

*He has not practiced as an advocate for 10 years in the high court.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issues in the foregoing case in a much-nuanced
[0]
approach. The Supreme Court of India observed the claim made by the respondents regarding
the protection of the correspondence and denied the same by stating that the correspondence
between the Law Minister, Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, and Chief Justice of India can only
be protected if its disclosure is contrary to the public interest and will cause injury to the public
interest. An open and participative democracy calls for accountability and access to information
by the public about the functioning of the government. A constant check on the functioning and
administration of the government would lead to a healthy government and would prevent
[2]
misuse and abuse of the position of power. The Supreme Court of India laid the concept of
Open Government which directly emanates from the Right to Know implicit under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which is the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.
[2] [4]
Thus the Court held that "the disclosure of the information regarding the functioning of the
government must be the rule and secrecy, to the exception where the strictest public interest
[2]
requires it".

Pertaining to the claim made by the Respondents for the protection of the correspondence
under Section 74(2) of The Indian Evidence Act, the Supreme Court of India held that while
advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President of India is protected under the
aforementioned section, the correspondence made here is not protected merely because it was
 [3]
referred to in the advice. Moreover merely the fact that the opinions of the Chief Justice of
India and the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court contributed to the correspondence does not
[0]
render them to be a part of the advice.

The Supreme Court of India refuted the claim of the Respondents seeking protection under
[1]
Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The claim made by the Respondents that the
correspondence was protected under the aforementioned section is supported by the Court in
[1]
the case of State of Punjab V.Sodhi Sukhdev Sing. In this, the Court held that the documents
which embody the meetings of the council of ministers or advice tendered by the council of
ministers are protected under Section 123. If the head of the concerned department does not
permit its publication, the Court cannot compel him for the same. Once the document falls into
[4]
the category of "affairs of state" it lies upon the discretion of the head of the department to
allow it to be published or not. But the Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Narain

Upheld the High Court's decision to disclose an official document. The Court reasoned that it
had the authority to determine if a document is in the public interest or not and order its
disclosure if its concealment or non-disclosure would be detrimental to the public interest. In
the ongoing case, the claims made by the respondents can be challenged only on two grounds;
1) there was no proper and effectual consultation between the Central Government and the
appropriate judicial authorities, and 2) it was based on irrelevant grounds. Both of these
grounds necessitate the disclosure of the correspondence. Public interest is something that is
included in the Indian Evidence Act. The Court while making a decision had to make a balance
[0]
between the fairness of justice and the public interest at large. The Court had to ensure that
[0]
the disclosure of the correspondence was not contrary to the public interest. In this case, the
correspondence was not contrary to the public interest. Transfer and appointment of judges
are in the interest of the public domain. The Supreme Court held that since it is in the public
interest its disclosure would not have been detrimental to the public interest. Thus the Court
held the decision of the Central Government to not disclose the correspondence as not
justified.
 OPINION:
[3]
Although, this judgment proved to be a vital point for the future of the independence of the
judiciary, it still left some loopholes to be exploited by the appropriate authorities according to
[3]
their own convenience.

For instance, not giving primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India in case of differing
opinions meant giving an upper hand to the executive in the matters of appointment and
transfer of judges. This allowed the executive to appoint and transfer judges at their own
disposal.
[4]
One positive aspect that resulted from the ruling of this case is the emphasis laid on the Right
to Know which is implicit in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The Public's right to
information was well articulated in this case and it created more transparency in functions
related to administration and judiciary. In the absence of this, misuse of power and abuse of
power vested in the officials ranging from a number of administrative functions to appointment
and transfer of judges, was inevitable.

Thus this case was the first step towards formulating a systematic procedure for the
appointment and transfer of judges creating more transparency in the procedure regarding the
appointment of judges.
REFERENCE:

1) S.P.Gupta V. Union of India (1981) AIR 149

2) Indian Kanoon internet site.
3/25/23, 10:35 PM Report | Grammarly

My Grammarly

We have found plagiarism in your text and have also

detected 20 writing issues.

Plagiarism found !

Grammar 3

Spelling

Punctuation 1

Conciseness 4

Readability

Word choice 2

Additional writing issues 10

Correct your errors now with Grammarly

Here's what you'll get:

Mistake-free and clear writing

Writing support everywhere you write

https://www.grammarly.com/report?adgroup=123250664540&clickid=Cj0KCQjwt_qgBhDFARIsABcDjOdrg2K1gX7jja5lVEME3nBuU30oslENciAt_… 1/2