Mera Gaon Mera Desh: Quo Warranto Jurisdiction
admin judiciary advanced poll_styleHi guys, I'm stuck between two answers on a Judicial Services question and need your help. In Administrative Law, under who's jurisdiction does the Supreme Court exercise the power of judicial review in the case of Union Carbide v Union of India [1986] SCC 254? A) The President of India B) The Speaker of Lok Sabha Now, I know some of you might be thinking 'what's the difference' but trust me, this is a key distinction. The Speaker can't even disqualify you for defection, how can they challenge a govt notification? But seriously, I've seen some coaching materials just sweeping this under the rug. So, what do you guys think? Help a brother out!
4 Comments
"Quo Warranto Jurisdiction ko kaafi jatil hai, lekin iska mool concept hai Article 226 ki Section 14 aur Article 222 ki Section 2 mein. Jo bhi wala party, usko apna mandal hai aur yeh sunishchit karna hoga ki koi aur adhigrahh nahi hai jo apna adhikar jaankaar rakh raha hai.
"Mera Gaon Mera Desh: Quo Warranto Jurisdiction"
Guys, I found this concept pretty interesting! Quo Warranto is essentially a petition to stop someone from misusing a public office or position. In Mera Gaon Mera Desh case, the SC held that the Centre must obtain the consent of the state govt before issuing notifications under Article 3. Agree with this as it maintains the federal structure.
Mujhe lagta hai ki is topic ko lekar kuch confusion hai. Quo Warranto jurisdiction ko lekar Supreme Court ke Article 136 aur 143 ke under aayogya seva mein hai. Iska mukhya uddeshya ek person ko aayogya seva se hataaneke liye hai jo Constitution ke anusaar aayogya seva mein nahin hai. Kuch log samjhe nahin hai ki iska kya matlab hai.
"Mere sawaal hai kya, kripya jaldi jawab do (my question is, please answer quickly). In Mera Gaon Mera Desh case, SC ne (the SC has) suo moto quashing kiya (undertaken suo moto quashing) of election of a MLA due to his ineligibility on technical grounds.