id string | audio audio | duration float64 | text string | speaker string | hearing_id string | case_id string | offset_s float64 | align_wer float64 | match_frac float64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
101772014_2023-10-04_00000 | 3.08 | Mr. Solicitor, why the mask if I'm...? | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 0.01 | 0.375 | 0.714 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00001 | 6.15 | My Lord, I had viral fever two three days back, so that I don't spread. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 3.09 | 0.375 | 0.667 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00007 | 23.063 | My Lord, If Your Lordship gives me five minutes before my learned friend starts, possibly the controversy can be narrowed down. The learned AG and my, My Lord, submissions are going to be that the view of Justice SC Agrawal is the correct view. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 16.837 | 0.2045 | 0.841 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00008 | 16.63 | There are two aspects to it. Both majority and minority go into two aspects, immunity, etc.. under Article 105 and PC Act when the offense is complete. I have read the judgment My Lord, fully, | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 40.89 | 0.0789 | 0.943 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00009 | 21.9 | irrespective of the 105, the contours of immunity, privileges, etc, both come to the conclusion that the offense is complete the moment there is an offer for bribe, and you accept the bribe. That was the statutory position prior to the amendment of the PC Act in 2017 and even thereafter. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 58.54 | 0.0182 | 0.98 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00010 | 15.57 | Narasimha Rao judgment is prior to 2017. It was amended thereafter in 2017. That is the position. The offense of bribery is complete, when I offer money to a member of Parliament or a member of assembly, he accepts. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 80.44 | 0.0732 | 0.949 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00011 | 15.92 | Then whether he performs the part of his bargain inside the House or not, has nothing to do with the criminality attached. So, essentially My Lord, In my respectful submission, it's more a question of interpretation of PC Act rather than My Lord, 105. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 96.35 | 0.1458 | 0.864 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00012 | 3.28 | But further question as to whether there is immunity still survives... | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 112.71 | 0.0909 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00014 | 17.1 | Because our court has held, the majority held that irrespective of the criminality, immunity attaches. And the only exception they made was to a person who does not fulfil their part of the bargain because they said that the words used in 105 are | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 117.77 | 0.0213 | 0.977 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00015 | 12.6 | it's in the past tense. Vote given or speech made. So they said if there's no vote cast or no speech made, though the bribe was taken, then there is no immunity. That's why Mr. Ajit Singh had to stand the prosecution. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 135.23 | 0.0667 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00017 | 17.27 | So, we'll have to ultimately deal with the issue of immunity as well as to whether they are right on the broader immunity. And what we have to do is this. Since, we are sitting as a bench of seven, we need not look at in all the circumstances what is the extent of the immunity enjoyed. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 149.89 | 0.0345 | 0.965 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00018 | 5.16 | We have to decide a very narrow issue. Can immunity attach when there is an element of criminality? | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 167.16 | 0 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00019 | 15.45 | It's ultimately, My Lord's call. But suppose My Lord, the performance of the part of the bargain by the elected member is not relevant. Whether he voted or he did not vote, whether he spoke or did not speak, | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 174.02 | 0.0488 | 0.949 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00020 | 7.34 | may not have relevance because the offense is committed outside the House. Then the privilege, My Lord, question may not arise. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 189.81 | 0.1905 | 0.81 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00021 | 6.6 | No but then... actually, you are right but then you will have to say that the immunity does not attach. That's what you are also... | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 197.35 | 0.0769 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00023 | 14.91 | We cannot then say that we don't have to go into whether there is immunity or otherwise. We'll have to say if the offense is committed outside, as you said, then there's no question of the immunity attaching under 105. Immunity can never attach where there's an element of criminality. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 205.85 | 0.1053 | 0.96 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00024 | 6.06 | Therefore, the respectful submission is the interpretation of PCA may be more relevant than 105. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 220.76 | 0.0556 | 0.933 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00025 | 10.41 | That's how we approach it actually. You are right. But it's good. Now the controversy really narrows down because, you are also of the view that the view of Justice Agrawal... Transcribed by TERES 4 | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 227.24 | 0.2162 | 0.8 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00027 | 3.36 | ...speaking for two judges, is a more correct view because Justice Bharucha and Justice... | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 238.28 | 0.2857 | 0.714 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00029 | 8.699 | Justice Bharucha and Justice Anand on the other side and Justice Ray agreed with them, on this issue of immunity. And that's how it became a majority of three. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 246.32 | 0.1667 | 0.828 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00030 | 3.561 | My Lord, that takes us to a narrow question of a nexus. | ATTORNEY GENERAL R. VENKATARAMANI | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 255.019 | 0.3333 | 0.667 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00034 | 14.94 | Certainly, My Lord. The only worry and I'll be very candid My Lord, because of a facts of bribery, etc. 105 may not be revisited, except in case of bribery. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 275.6 | 0.2353 | 0.767 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00036 | 4.096 | The Raja Ram Pal line of judgments, etc, what are the contours... | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 290.54 | 0.25 | 0.75 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00037 | 16.814 | Mr. Solicitor, you are entirely right, because we should not be entering on issues which don't strictly arise before us, because the law has evolved in our country by a very interstitial steps, you know there has been some relaxation from the UP case | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 294.636 | 0.2889 | 0.932 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00039 | 15.76 | That's all. My Lord, because in that case, My Lord, the submission would be, that inside the House, the Legislature would have as much independence, as it has, as much like My Lord, any other organ of the State. | TUSHAR MEHTA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 319.47 | 0.175 | 0.846 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00040 | 16.12 | Absolutely. There's no doubt about it. The whole purpose was to encourage free speech, have an unrestrained dialogue in the Parliament and in the State Legislatures, and that we must preserve, it's a very important part of our nation, the Legislature, both in the Union and in the States. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 335.48 | 0.0784 | 0.939 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00041 | 7.25 | We are not to be heard saying that bribery is condonable. | ATTORNEY GENERAL R. VENKATARAMANI | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 352.6 | 0.1818 | 0.909 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00044 | 10.68 | With a request and promise My Lords, the request is that if the ambient temperature is increased a little bit, My Lords, we are freezing and we promise to be cool in our arguments. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 362.67 | 0.2941 | 0.706 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00046 | 20.683 | My Lords, only for the benefit of Justice Narasimha and Justice Sanjay Kumar, who were not there on the previous occasion, just a few lines of introduction, and then I get straight into the matter, My Lords. This, My Lords, is a regular criminal appeal, | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 376.737 | 0.1556 | 0.844 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00047 | 26.97 | arising out of a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, declining to quash prosecution against the appellant, who is being prosecuted, under My Lord's, relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, for the alleged offense, of taking a bribe to vote in | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 398.25 | 0.0816 | 0.938 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00048 | 17.52 | a Rajya Sabha election, the appellant was at the relevant time a sitting MLA of Jharkhand. She's alleged to have taken a bribe, from an independent candidate, to vote for him rather than for her party candidate. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 426.15 | 0 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00049 | 15.88 | But in the event, the vote was actually for her party candidate, because that comes out in the open voting, then there were complaints that election was countermanded. There was a fresh election and again, she voted for her party candidate, etc. But she was sought to be prosecuted on this allegation, | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 445.03 | 0.0385 | 0.962 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00050 | 16.69 | that is how, My Lords, the matter arises. Your Lordships are, of course not concerned with the merits of the appeal just now, I have in my written submission, My Lords, Volume 1, just touched upon the merits, only to indicate the nature of the controversy. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 461.33 | 0.1739 | 0.848 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00051 | 19.6 | And we contend, My Lords, that we have a strong case Transcribed by TERES 6 on merits, the order granting bail in 2014, passes adverse observations against the CBI, My Lords, and the CBI has not appealed against the order granting bail. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 478.02 | 0.2093 | 0.786 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00052 | 19.74 | So, apart from other things My Lords, apart from immunity, I have a strong case on merits, but of course, Your Lordships are not concerned with that. Now, My Lords, can I first place the language of the Articles, then come to the order of reference, and then come straight to my submissions, My Lords? | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 498.09 | 0.1273 | 0.873 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00054 | 16.56 | All My Lords have got 105(1). 'Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament'. That is, My Lords, subject to the provisions of the Constitution. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 540.86 | 0.0833 | 0.932 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00055 | 19.89 | But My Lords, 105(2), 'No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any Court, in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament'. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 558.77 | 0.0588 | 0.933 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00056 | 22.63 | Kindly note here the word 'Parliament', because I'm going to draw a distinction with the second part of this provision, 'or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect to the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings'. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 579.26 | 0.0556 | 0.962 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00057 | 18.18 | So, the same clause of Article 105(2) uses 'Parliament' in two different contexts. One, Parliament the other is House of Parliament, and I am going to make a submission on that My Lords, in due course. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 602.69 | 0.2 | 0.917 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00058 | 25.97 | 'Three, in other respects the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may, from time to time, be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined, shall be those of that House and its members and committees immediately before ... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 620.87 | 0.0135 | 0.986 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00059 | 21.23 | 'The provisions of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 shall apply in relation to persons by virtue of this Constitution, who, by virtue of this Constitution, have the right to speak in, and otherwise, take part in the proceedings of a House of Parliament or any Committee thereof, as they apply in relation to members of Parliament'. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 648.13 | 0 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00060 | 19.85 | Therefore, my learned friend, the Attorney General addresses Parliament, My Lords, he will also have the same immunity. Now, may I take, My Lords, straight to the Order of Reference dated 20th September. It is a detailed order of 16 pages | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 669.36 | 0.2381 | 0.878 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00061 | 20.43 | but, for the present purpose, it's enough for me, My Lords. This will be at page 3 of Volume 3. Page 3 Volume 3, My Lords. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 690.16 | 0.2222 | 0.846 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00062 | 8.23 | I'll take My Lords straight to page 15, because the first part sets out the nature of the controversy, how the reference was made... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 710.59 | 0.2 | 0.958 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00067 | 21.2 | I'll take My Lords straight to para 24, at page 15. 'We are inclined..' may I read, My Lords? | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 755.1 | 0.3333 | 0.684 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00070 | 15.42 | ‘We are inclined to agree with the submission of the amicus curiae and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Counsel, that the view which has been expressed in the decision of the majority in P.V. Narasimha Rao, requires to be reconsidered by a larger bench. Our reasons prima facie for doing so are formulated below. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 782.16 | 0.0741 | 0.943 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00071 | 30.22 | (1) Firstly, the interpretation of Article 105(2) and the corresponding provisions of 194(2) of the Constitution must be guided by the text, context, and the object and purpose underlying the provision. The fundamental purpose and object underlying Article 105(2) of the Constitution, is that Members of Parliament, or a... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 798.18 | 0 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00072 | 24.88 | members of the Committees of the House, without fear of consequences. While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution recognizes the individual right to the freedom of speech and expression, Article 105(2) institutionalizes that right, by recognizing the importance of the members of the Legislature having the freedom to exp... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 828.4 | 0.0455 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00073 | 25.7 | In other words, the object of article 105(2) or article 194(2) does not prima facie appear to render immunity from the launch of criminal proceedings for a violation of the criminal law, which may arise independently of the exercise of the rights and duties as a Member of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 853.68 | 0.0923 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00074 | 27.6 | Secondly, in the course of the judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao, Justice SC Agrawal noted a serious anomaly, if the construction and support of immunity under Article 105(2) for a bribe taker were to be accepted, a member would enjoy immunity from prosecution for such a charge, if the member accepts the bribe for speakin... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 880.91 | 0.0482 | 0.962 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00075 | 16.28 | On the other hand, no immunity would attach, and the Member of the Legislature would be liable to be prosecuted on a charge of bribery, if they accept the bribe for not speaking or for not giving their vote on a matter under consideration before the House, but they act to the contrary. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 909.09 | 0 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00076 | 27.01 | This anomaly, Justice Agrawal observed, would be avoided if the words 'in respect of' in Article 105(2) are construed to mean 'arising out of'. I'm going to contest that, My Lords. In other words, in such a case, the immunity would be available only Transcribed by TERES 8 if the speech that has been made or the vote th... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 926.15 | 0.1279 | 0.889 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00077 | 26.33 | And thirdly, the judgment of Justice SC Agrawal has specifically dwelt on the question as to when the offense of bribery would be complete. The judgment notes that the offense is complete with the acceptance of the money or on the agreement to accept the money being concluded and is not dependent on the performance of ... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 954 | 0.0645 | 0.935 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00078 | 23.89 | The receiver of the bribe would be treated to have committed the offense even when he fails to perform the bargain underlying the tender and acceptance of the bribe. This aspect, bearing on the constituent elements of the offense of bribe, finds elaboration in the judgment of Justice Agrawal, but is not dealt with in t... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 981.28 | 0.0667 | 0.933 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00079 | 20.92 | I am going to submit My Lords, the fact that the majority did not specifically say when the offense of bribery is complete does not make a difference to the correctness of that conclusion because My Lords, the majority could not have thought otherwise. The offensive bribery was, after all My Lords, in criminal law comp... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,005.65 | 0.1549 | 0.859 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00080 | 19.82 | We have already noted that efforts in seeking a review of the judgment in Narasimha Rao... rest I need not read, My Lords. Your Lordships only noted that previous attempts failed. But Your Lordships have considered it necessary to refer for the following reasons. Now, I have made a detailed written submission, My Lords... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,027.19 | 0.1724 | 0.879 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00081 | 9.33 | but from that written submission only for the convenience of the Court, My Lord, I am handing up six bullet points, My Lords. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,047.43 | 0.1739 | 0.826 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00082 | 3.58 | Upload hi kardo so that all the members of the Bar and the Court can also follow it. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,056.76 | 0.1667 | 0.833 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00084 | 29.99 | Overruling the long settled law in Narasimha Rao, in the Narasimha Rao case is unwarranted according to the test laid down by this Hon'ble Court for itself on the question of overturning judicial precedents. This is going to be my starting point, My Lord, because, this is the reference being made, My Lord, and the reas... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,092.67 | 0.1351 | 0.865 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00085 | 17.53 | in the matter of overruling precedents. So, I hope My Lord, by placing these judgments at the outset Your Lordship's decision to reconsider, would be guided by these tests, which have already been laid down. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,122.66 | 0.0556 | 0.943 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00086 | 13.99 | That's the purpose of citing these cases My Lords, at the outset. So, the first My lords, is an early decision, Keshav Mills, My Lords, which was an income tax case. And that My Lords... Transcribed by TERES 9 | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,140.19 | 0.375 | 0.615 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00088 | 29.871 | Very well, Your Lordships. 2) The concept of constitutional privileges and immunities, is not in derogation of the rule of law, but is a distinct pillar in the constitutional edifice. This submission is made, My Lords, in the context of Justice Agrawal's judgment, and something which has been highlighted by those who a... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,160.239 | 0.1143 | 0.899 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00089 | 26.53 | My submission is going to be, that no, it is perfectly consistent with the rule of law. The rule of law postulates, constitutionalism and one of the pillars of constitutionalism, historically, traditionally has been a regime of immunities and privileges as well and so there is no inconsistency with the rule of law. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,190.15 | 0 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00090 | 19.44 | 3) The so called anomaly, in the majority view in Narasimha Rao, flows from the plain language of Articles 105(2) and 194(2), and to whittle down their protective scope, to adhere to what is seemingly logical, | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,219.25 | 0.0222 | 0.972 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00091 | 16.21 | fair or reasonable would be constitutionally unjustified. 4) The dissenting judgment in Narasimha Rao has erred in reading 'in respect of', as 'arising out of', | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,239.34 | 0.04 | 0.96 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00092 | 26.24 | such a reading is not warranted by either the plain language or intent of the provision. 5) The fact that the offense of bribery in criminal law is complete when the bribe is given and is not dependent on the performance of the promised favour, is of no consequence to the constitutional immunity under Articles 105(2), ... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,256.01 | 0.0455 | 0.965 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00093 | 22.52 | Once a speech is made or a vote is given, the nexus 'in respect of' is fulfilled. And My Lords, finally, this is in the context, My Lords, of the submission that in any case, voting for a Rajya Sabha election, | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,282.89 | 0.0976 | 0.902 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00094 | 17.05 | is not entitled to this immunity because it is not a vote, it is not a legislative vote, that is the submission. And that is where the distinction which I had drawn, My Lords, I will | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,307.71 | 0.0556 | 0.944 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00095 | 24.61 | highlight, that no, it doesn't have to be a legislative proceeding in the sense of voting in a House of the Legislature. It is part of a Legislator's function as a Legislator, Article 80 of the Constitution, constitutes the Electoral College for the Rajya Sabha. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,325.41 | 0.0426 | 0.978 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00096 | 15.99 | An MLA is constitutionally made part of that Electoral College. So one of the essential duties of an MLA, is to vote for a Rajya Sabha election. So this voting | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,350.02 | 0.0333 | 0.967 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00097 | 29.78 | though not on the floor of the House, but in the lobby of the House is nevertheless, a vote in the Legislature and so if there is a protection for a vote on a bill in the House equally, the protection should apply to a constitutionally mandated role of an MLA, to vote in a Rajya Sabha election. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,368.51 | 0.0345 | 0.966 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00100 | 20.5 | The Attorney General's case, My Lords. One of their reasons for saying, that this reference is not necessary, they contended before the 5 Judge Bench also was, that in any case Narasimha Rao will not apply Lordships please, now, My Lords, can I take Transcribed by TERES 10 My Lords, straight to | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,402.7 | 0.2075 | 0.788 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00102 | 9.72 | 12, My Lords, the relevant portion starts under the subheading (d) My Lords, whether the concept of Parliament… | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,442.74 | 0.2222 | 0.778 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00105 | 8.66 | It will go a little beyond lunch, My Lords. I can't say it'll be over in an hour. My Lord it will go… that's my estimate, My Lords. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,472.16 | 0.2903 | 0.75 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00106 | 7.82 | A little beyond lunch? Just so that we can have an assessment of everybody. We are, of course, continuing the hearing now, Mr. Patwalia amicus, how long will you take? | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,480.82 | 0.1667 | 0.9 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00108 | 12.46 | Actually, what we could do is, we can hear Mr. Patwalia, ideally, after the others have argued. Wouldn't that be better, because we then have a complete unfolding of the case by everyone. And amicus, you can then wrap it up for us…. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,494.9 | 0.1818 | 0.977 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00110 | 4.077 | …join, because Mr. Ramachandran is alone against all of us. | GOPAL SANKARANARAYANAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,510.993 | 0.3 | 0.8 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00112 | 4.06 | He is effectively going to be taking the burden of saying Narasimha Rao is right. | GOPAL SANKARANARAYANAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,515.35 | 0.2667 | 0.733 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00113 | 10.46 | Right, all of you are on this side. So, according to you, once Mr. Patwalia concludes then, of course, we’d like the Attorney to give us his vision, because that’s a Constitutional interpretation. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,519.41 | 0.2 | 0.909 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00118 | 5.28 | And then we can see what else is remaining. Of course, then the Attorney can… | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,570.57 | 0.2 | 0.8 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00120 | 20.67 | Of course. Of course. We’ll see, of course. We’re here right? No difficulty. But, we’d like to hear an intervenor only if a junior is arguing for the intervenor, not if a senior, then we have enough seniors on the… But if you are arguing personally, then we'll give you an opportunity before the seven judges. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,575.85 | 0.2833 | 0.786 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00122 | 6.1 | Well, if the juniors are ready, we’d certainly like to hear you, because you must be given an opportunity to appear before the seven judges. | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,602.76 | 0.1154 | 0.96 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00126 | 17.01 | So, we’ll not take the alternative list now because this matter is well and substantially now underway. So, the other members of the Bar who want to hear this matter, of course, you're most welcome to sit in the Court, but we are not going to take the alternative list today. The alternative list, we’ll discharge the bo... | CHIEF JUSTICE DY CHANDRACHUD | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,623.45 | 0.0492 | 0.966 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00128 | 30.17 | Page 12 of Volume 1, under the heading, My Lords, ‘Whether the concept of Parliamentary/Legislative privilege, as it stands today, needs to be further refined, if not altered?’ Sub-heading (d), towards the bottom | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,646.31 | 0.1714 | 0.909 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00129 | 29.39 | of page 12. My Lords have got Transcribed by TERES 12 sub-para 14? ‘The need to further refine the already refined concept of Parliamentary/Legislative privilege, may be viewed from three standpoints (a) the law of judicial certainty and stare decisis (b) Parliament's views on this matter (c) the unintended consequence... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,676.48 | 0.2388 | 0.812 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00130 | 17.1 | Now, on this aspect of judicial certainty, I have culled out the principles and just I'll cite three or four cases, just the relevant parts. This a well-settled principle that law should not be unsettled merely on the ground that an alternative view appears to be more reasonable. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,706.39 | 0.16 | 0.938 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00131 | 18.14 | A judicial precedent cannot be set aside unless, (a) Certain patent aspects of the question had remained unnoticed, and the attention of the Court on the previous occasion was not drawn to any relevant and material statutory provisions or judicial decisions. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,724.85 | 0 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00132 | 18.08 | (b) There was an error in the previous judgment provided the error had a serious impact on the general administration of law. (c) The previous judgment has not been consistently followed in subsequent decisions. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,743.78 | 0 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00133 | 18.02 | That doesn't apply here at all because this has held the field, My Lord for so long. (d) There has arisen a social, constitutional or economic change since, the pronouncement of the previous judgment necessitating a change in judicial stand. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,762.22 | 0.0732 | 0.925 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00134 | 17.6 | There can be a sea change in thinking My Lord, as in the 377 case My Lord, or in the context in which ADM Jabalpur was overruled. It was a complete change in thinking My Lord, there has been no such... there is no such need in this case is what I am going to submit. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,781.28 | 0.2 | 0.786 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00135 | 20.16 | Since political corruption was a phenomenon very much prevalent from 1967 'Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram' came in 1967. It's not a recent phenomenon. Now, 3 or 4 decisions, My Lords, Keshav Mills, | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,799.34 | 0.2432 | 0.844 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00139 | 18.98 | Volume 5, page 287, the judgment starts. Somewhere in the middle, My Lords, somewhere in the middle of | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,844.29 | 0.2727 | 0.778 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00140 | 21.73 | para 23, at page 294. Sentence starts, 'but different considerations must inevitably arise' because earlier was whether you can set aside a judgment of the High Court. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,864.39 | 0.1562 | 0.963 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00141 | 11.65 | So obviously different considerations apply. 'But different consideration must inevitably arise where a previous decision of this Court has taken a particular view.' Justice Pardiwala has got it? | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,886.12 | 0.1429 | 0.893 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00146 | 3.88 | ... in dealing with the question as to whether the earlier decisions. | JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,904.31 | 0.3636 | 0.833 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00151 | 16.24 | But different consideration must inevitably arise where a previous decision of this Court has taken a particular view as to the construction of a statutory provision. As, for instance, Section 66(4) of the Act, when it is urged that the view already taken by this Court should be reviewed and revised, | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,918.37 | 0.0755 | 1 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00152 | 15.63 | it may not necessarily be an adequate reason for such review and revision to hold that, though the earlier view is are reasonably possible view, the alternative view which is pressed on the subsequent occasion, is more reasonable. In reviewing and revising its earlier decision | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,935.11 | 0.0444 | 0.956 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00153 | 29.72 | this Court should ask itself whether in the interest of the public good or any other valid and compulsive reasons, it is necessary that the earlier decision should be revised. When this Court decides questions of law, its decisions are under Article 141, binding on all Courts within the territory of India and so it mus... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,951.31 | 0.023 | 0.976 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00154 | 16.17 | Frequent exercise by this Court of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground, that the view pressed before it later appears to the Court to be more reasonable, may incidentally, tend to make law uncertain and introduce confusion, which must be consistently avoided. | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,981.05 | 0.0435 | 0.957 | |
101772014_2023-10-04_00155 | 21.38 | That is not to say that if on a subsequent occasion this Court is satisfied that its earlier decision was clearly erroneous, it should hesitate to correct the error. But before a previous decision is pronounced to be plainly erroneous, this Court must be satisfied with a fair amount of unanimity among its members, that... | RAJU RAMACHANDRAN | 101772014_2023-10-04 | 10177-2014 | 1,997.36 | 0.0312 | 0.969 |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 32