Supreme Court of India

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION versus NIKHIL GULATI AND ANR.

Decided: 13 February 1998
Judges listed: M.M. PUNCHHI, B.N. KIRPAL, M. SRINIVASAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Dismissed

Citations

Official

[1998] 1 S.C.R. 897 · 1998 INSC 92

Also cited as

(1998) 3 SCC 5 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown

4 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR. GUARDIAN AND ORS. versus C.B.S.E. AND ORS. 13 November 2006 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 16

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph¶

Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are permitted, under court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the courts have almost always observed that the instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process; more so when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. And yet it is repeated time and again. Having said this much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders for it puts the 'Rule of Law' to a mockery and promotes rather the 'Rule of Man'. A All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students, herein. Therefore, we decline to interfere wider Article 136 of the Constitution. The S.L.Ps. are, accordingly, dismissed. T.N.A. Petitions dismissed.

pp. 897–898, margin F