Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Javed And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

Supreme Court Of India

Jul 30, 2003

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

CASE NO.

Writ Petition No. 302 of 2001 with CAs Nos. 5355-72, 5380-82, 5385-86, 5397-5450 of 2003, WPs (C) Nos. 269, 316, 315, 329, 362-63, 258, 403, 395, 420, 438, 475, 507-08, 495, 567, 560, 559, 561, 538, 539, 579 of 2001, 19, 30, 32, 1, 49-50, 79, 94, 130, 93, 127, 144, 169, 168, 128, 177, 112, 71, 91, 178, 184, 183, 185, 68 of 2002, 430 of 2001, 213-14, 162, 230, 225, 228, 254, 296, 280, 281, 305, 317, 309 of 2002, CA No. 3629 of 2002, WP (C) No. 306 of 2002, CA No. 4053 of 2002, WPs (C) Nos. 341-42, 395 of 2002, CA No. 4066 of 2002, WPs (C) Nos. 396, 406 of 2002, CAs Nos. 4501, 4487 of 2002, WPs (C) Nos. 402, 336, 424, 355, 381, 380, 430-31, 421, 404 of 2002, CAs Nos. 5080-81 of 2002, WPs (C) Nos. 443, 457, 451 of 2002, CA No. 5270 of 2002, WPs (C) Nos. 462, 491, 495 of 2002, CAs Nos. 5902-03 of 2002, WP (C) No. 278 of 2002, CA No. 7034 of 2002, WPs (C) Nos. 612, 574, 607, 240, 655, 676-77, 547, 645, 620, 682 of 2002, 8 of 2003, 669 of 2002, 18, 28, 40 of 2003, CA No. 2033 of 2003, WPs (C) Nos. 63, 121, 123 of 2003, CA No. 2395 of 2003, WPs (C) Nos. 149, 193, 195, 204, 155, 161, 188, 245, 247-48, 250, 257, 268, 270, 277 and 281 of 2003, decided on July 30, 2003

Attorney(S)

Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, S.B Sanyal, R.P Bhatt and P.P Rao, Senior Advocates (Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, Altaf Hussain, Anil Sharma, Anil Karnwal, Vishal Malik, M.S Dahiya, Sanjay Sarin, Ashok Mathur, Arun Agarwal, S.C Birla, Ms Kusum Chaudhary, B.R Kapur, Mukesh Kumar, Sunit Kumar, Anis Ahmed Khan, Bhava Dutta Sharma, B.S Chahar, Ms Jyoti Chahar, Vinay Garg, Suresh C. Gupta, A. Guneshwar Sharma, Sanjay Pal, Ms Shashwati Sen, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Ms Rachna Joshi Issar, Ajay Siwach, Jasbir S. Malik, S.K Sabharwal, Dr Ramesh K. Haritash, Ms Alka Rai, Goodwill Indeevar, Hari Shankar K., Ranbir Singh Yadav, Dr Kailash Chand, Sarvesh Bisaria, Ms Nidhi, K.R Nagaraja, Sanjay Garg, R.K Talwar, Y.P Dhingra, Panna Lal Syngal, M.L Bakshi, S.S Nehra, R.C Kohli, Monoher Singh Bakshi, Ms Dipali Chauhan, Debasis Misra, Mahabir Singh, Ajay Pal, Rakesh Dahiya, Irshad Ahmed, A.P Mohanty, Manoj Swarup, R.D Rathore, K.K Gupta, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Varinder Kr. Sharma, C.D Singh, L.K Pandey, Mushtaq Ahmed, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms Neelam Sharma, Ajai Bhalla, Ms Abha R. Sharma, Ms Sunita R. Singh, R.C Pandey, S.K Bansal, Ms Savitri Bansal, Harbans Lal Bajaj, Ms Lalitha Kaushik, Jagdish Kr. Agarwal, Dr K.R Punia, Ms Santosh Singh, Ms Vandana Singh, Rakesh Kr. Mudgal, J.S Maharatta, Rao Ranjit, Somvir Singh Deswal, M.P Shorawala, Madhukar Agarwal, P.K Jain, Ms Sandhya Goswami, Ms M. Sharda, Raj Kr. Mehta, B.S Mor, S.M Hooda, Gian Singh, R.C Kaushik, Naresh Kumar, Rajiv Talwar, Ms Naresh Bakshi, Pradeep Gupta, K.K Mohan, Shakeel Ahmed, Attar Singh, Vishwajit Singh, Ms Praveena Gautam, R.P Goyal, S.K Sinha, Shankar Divate, S.C Patel, D. Mahesh Babu, Ms Rekha Palli, C.L Sahu, Dr Surat Singh, Ashok K. Mahajan, Rajesh Tyagi, Ms Aparana Bhardwaj, Baldev Atreya, Praveen Jain, P. Narasimhan, Bimal Roy Jad, Ms Sunita Pandit, Jaswant Rajpal, M.M Kashyap, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Rohit Minocha, S.N Bhat, N.P.S Panwar, D.P Chaturvedi, Rishiraj Barooah, J.P Dhanda, Ms Raj Rani Dhanda, Ms Geetanjali Mohan, Vinay Kr. Garg, Ms Kavita Wadia, Krishnan Venugopal, Uday N. Tiwary, Prasad Vijaya Kumar, Balaram Das, K.G Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat, Kamal Baid, Nipun Sharma, R.D Upadhyay, Manish Singhvi and Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.

JUDGES

Justice R.C. Lahoti

Justice Ashok Bhan

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion resolves a group of petitions that challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1). The text supplied contains only the court’s conclusion, and no additional factual or procedural background is provided.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) are constitutionally valid.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court concluded that both impugned provisions are “salutary and in public interest.” On that basis, it held that the challenge to their constitutional validity fails “on all counts.” The opinion excerpt does not disclose the specific analytical steps or legal tests employed; it simply states the outcome that the provisions are intra vires the Constitution.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The petitions challenging Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) are dismissed; both provisions are declared intra vires the Constitution.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the statutory provisions remain fully operative, and the petitioners obtain no relief. The excerpt offers no discussion of broader legal implications or the establishment of new precedent.

Show all summary ...

conclusion

The challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) fails on all the counts. Both the provisions are held intra vires the Constitution. The provisions are salutary and in public interest. All the petitions which challenge the constitutional validity of the abovesaid provisions are held liable to be dismissed.

(Para 65)

R-M/ANWTZ/28726.C