Supreme Court: Promotion Suitability Must be Decided by Experts, Courts Cannot Create New Methods  ||  SC: Market Integrity is Paramount; Rule Violators Cannot Escape Liability by Citing Investor Gains  ||  SC: Plaintiff's Reply to Counterclaim in Commercial Suits Must Meet Written Statement Deadline  ||  SC: Pre-2016 Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery Certificates Cannot Support Insolvency Notices  ||  SC: Children's Court Cannot Try Child as Adult Without Passing a Reasoned Order under JJ Act  ||  SC: Contractual Clauses Denying Interest on Security Deposits Does Not Violate Public Policy  ||  J&K&L HC: Unamended Pleading Loses Effect After Amendment; Party Cannot Benefit From Own Default  ||  Allahabad HC: Wife's Maintenance Need Not be Fixed at 25% of Husband's Net Income  ||  Kerala HC: Social Customs Alone Cannot Prove Bride Entrusted Gold to Husband or In-Laws  ||  Karnataka HC: Century Club Qualifies as a Public Authority under the RTI Act Due to Land Grant    

Md. Abdul Khalique and Ors. v. The State of Manipur and Ors. - (High Court of Manipur) (06 Jun 2016)

Slight deviation from guidelines forgivable at judicial review

MANU/MN/0052/2016

Constitution

Manipur High Court dismissed challenge by a constable of the police force against his dismissal order, which he claimed was passed without an enquiry being held and on the basis of uncorroborated evidence.

The court rejected Petitioner’s claims that his dismissal from the force was solely on the basis of a statement of a self-proclaimed leader of a banned army organisation; instead it noted the police to have recorded other instances of Petitioner’s “subversive activities”. The State’s intelligence agencies had also unearthed other incriminating evidence against him.

The Petitioner, a constable with the police force, was arrested for partaking in acts adversely affecting security in the State and was involved in anti-national activities. One of the several charges proved against him included hurling a hand grenade near a hospital.

The court concluded that judicial review of the dismissal order was restricted to the relevant authorities not having followed prescribed guidelines. However, departure from norm would likely not be interfered in by courts unless the same prejudice the interests of the public.

Relevant : Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. MANU/SC/0021/1967 Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0048/1979 A.K. Kaul and another vs. Union of India and another MANU/SC/0267/1995

Tags : JUDICIAL REVIEW   ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER   NATIONAL SECURITY   DEVIATION   GUIDELINES  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved