Follow:
- Next story Full order Writ Petition (MD) No. –18725 of 2020 and W.M.P. (MD) No. 15646 of 2020 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and B.PUGALENDHI, J. (Order of the Court was passed by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.) It was 17th April, 1999, there was deep silence in the Parliament voting was over no confidence motion moved by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, headed NDA Government. Every body was looking at digital board. It showed 269 Yes and 270 No. Speaker G.M.Balayogi announced that confidence motion was defeated by one vote. Such was the importance of one vote in making or. –Could the rights of State of Tamil Nadu and similarly placed States could be violated by reduction in number of Members of Parliament who could be elected from the State for successfully implementing birth control programmes thereby reducing the population of the State? Could the States, which could not successfully implement population control programmes, be benefited with more political representatives in the Parliament? Why not this Court prohibit the Respondents from further reducing number of Parliament seats from Tamil Nadu, based on future census as per population as growth of population has been contained, when the freezing of seats come to an end in 2026 ? Why not the Respondents pay a sum of Rs.200 crores valuing notionally of the services / contribution made by each Member of Parliament to the State ? Why not Central Government pay a sum of Rs.5600 crores as Tamil Nadu lost 28 representatives in the past from 1962 onwards in 14 elections? Why not the Respondents restore 41 MP seats to State which was there till 1962 general elections as it lost 2 Members of Parliament due to control of population from 1967 general election onwards ? Why not the Central Government come forward with a proposal that those States which effectively control the population in their respective States would be given equal number of seats in Rajya Sabha in lien of reduction in number of Lok Sabha seats ? Why not Article 81 of the Constitution be amended to maintain the same number of parliamentary constituencies irrespect of change in the population of respective States ? Mrs. Victoria Gouri, Learned Counsel takes notice on behalf of the First and Second Respondents. Mr. Niranjan Rajagopal, Learned Counsel takes notice on behalf of the Third Respondent. Mr. Muthu Geethaiyan, Learned Counsel takes notice for the Fourth Respondent, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the Fifth Respondent. Notice to the newly impleaded Respondents returnable in four weeks. Private notice is also permitted. The Respondents shall answer to the queries raised by four weeks. Call the matter after four weeks. [N.K.K., J.] [B.P., J.]
- Previous story Sekarreporter: *THE STUDY CIRCLE is inviting you to its 96th Meeting!* Topic: *An Overview of Commercial Courts Act, 2015* Speaker: *Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Sundar, Judge, Madras High Court*
Recent Posts
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
- Case quashed against Big boss darsan advocate Thenmoli
More
Recent Posts
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
- Case quashed against Big boss darsan advocate Thenmoli
