 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Gist of the replies 4.19. A large majority of the replies to question No. 4 both from Bench and the Bar are opposed to any amendment on the lines put-forth in the question, and only a small number favours it. 4.20. Some judges1 of the Supreme Court, who have favoured us with their written views, are also against any provision in the Constitution to limit the power of the Supreme Court in the matter of granting ad interim stay in petitions under Article 32. The object, they say, could be achieved by making suitable rules under Article 145 of the Constitution. 1. S. No. 50. 4.21. One of the other comments states that the prevailing situations in the country are such that the aggrieved citizens are filing large number of writ petitions, a good number of which ends in success. If the power of granting stay under Article 32 or Article 226 is restricted, the purpose for which those Articles are intended would be frustrated to a great extent.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back