Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 317(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, FOR INQUIRY AND REPORT ON THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST DR. H.B. MIRDHA,CHAIRMAN ORISSA PSC versus .

Decided
5 August 2005
Judges listed
R.C. LAHOTI, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, G.P. MATHUR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Hearing Adjourned

Citations

Official
[2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 370 · 2005 INSC 336

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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.

This is a Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India initiated by the President of India calling for an inquiry into the alleged misbehaviour of Dr. H.B. Mirdha, the then Chairman of the Orissa Public Service Commission. Before the Court closed for summer vacation, the learned counsel appearing in the case were heard on the preiiminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent, laying challenge to the maintainability of

p. 370, margin G

3 71 the Reference itself. Orders were reserved. However, we find some essential factual information missing, on availability whereof, we would like to hear all the learned counsel on the necessary aspects of the preliminary objection, reflected in the issues which we frame hereunder.

p. 371

First, on point of fact we would like the Union of India to supply the information and clarify if, before making the reference to this Court, was there any advise by the Council of Ministers tendered to the President oflndia within the meaning of Article 74 of the Constitution?

p. 371, margin A

On such information being made available in three weeks, we would like to hear the learned Artorney General for India as also all the learned counsel appearing in the case on the following issues :

p. 371, margin B

(!) Whether the applicability of Article 74 of the Constitution is attracted to a Reference made by the President under Article 317(1) of the Constitution.? (2) (a) If 'yes', at what stage?

p. 371, margin C

(b) Whether the initiation of Reference by the President under Article 317(1) must be precedent under Article 317(1) must be preceded by the advise of the Council of Ministers under Article 74?

p. 371, margin D

(c) Whether the applicability of Article 74 is attracted to Article 317 only when the Report ·on Inquiry held by the Supreme Court has been received by the President and a decision for removal or otherwise is to be taken by the President.

p. 371, margin E

List after four weeks. R.P. Matter adjourned.

p. 371, margin F