38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, March 19, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Kerala HC Dismisses Quo Warranto Plea Challenging Appointment of its Former Judge as Chairman of Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes

By Pavitra Shetty      10 October, 2020 05:10 PM      0 Comments
Kerala HC Dismisses Quo Warranto Plea Challenging Appointment of its Former Judge as Chairman of Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes

In the presence of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P.Chaly, a writ petition filed seeking to issue the writ of quo warranto declaring retired Judge G. Sasidharan as disqualified to hold the post of Chairman of the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes has been dismissed

The petition was filed by S. Subramaniam, an activist and his arguments for disqualification of retired Judge G. Sasidharan as Chairman of the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes are based on the fact that he was appointed to the post of Upa Lok Ayukta under Section 3 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.

The petitioner further contends that Judge G. Sasidharan is receiving salary and allowances from the State Government and thus under the employment of the Government and Section 3 (3) Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 provides for the removal of such persons. 

Petitioner referred to Section 3 of The Parliament (Prevention of the Disqualification) Act, 1959, which specified that an office of profit under the Government of India or any states shall act as a disqualification for the holder.

The most important question for consideration by the Court here was - Whether the office of Chairman of Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes is either under the employment of Government of India or under the Government of State?

The court made the following important observations which are as follows - 

  1. Merely because of Section 3 (3) Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 it cannot be said that the Government has control.
  2. Section 9 Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 states that advice of the commission shall ordinarily be binding upon the government. 
  3. Thus when the advice of the commission is binding on Government, the commission cannot be said to be under the control of the Government 
  4. Section 10 Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 states that the commission shall have the powers of the Civil Court. 
  5. The Parliament (Prevention of the Disqualification) Act, 1959, is inappropriate for the case 

Lastly, the court rejected the contention that the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes is under the Employment of Government of India and thus dismissed the petition.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-sets-aside-ngt-order-for-temple-demolition-holds-tribunal-has-no-jurisdiction-over-encroachments-under-municipal-laws
Trending Judiciary
SC Sets Aside NGT Order for Temple Demolition; Holds Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction Over Encroachments Under Municipal Laws [Read Order]

Supreme Court sets aside NGT order to demolish Ghaziabad temple, ruling tribunal lacks jurisdiction over encroachments under municipal laws.

18 March, 2026 10:41 AM
meghalaya-hc-quashes-ghadc-order-making-st-certificate-mandatory-for-election-nominations
Trending Judiciary
Meghalaya HC Quashes GHADC Order Making ST Certificate Mandatory for Election Nominations [Read Order]

Meghalaya HC quashes GHADC notification mandating ST certificate for poll nominations, cites lack of Governor approval and due process.

18 March, 2026 03:51 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-dismisses-mcgms-challenge-to-arbitral-award-holds-conduct-of-party-relevant-to-decide-jurisdictional-challenge
Trending Judiciary
SC Dismisses MCGM’s Challenge to Arbitral Award, Holds Conduct of Party Relevant to Decide Jurisdictional Challenge [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court dismisses MCGM’s challenge to arbitral award, holds party conduct relevant while deciding jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

13 March, 2026 12:31 PM
sc-pulls-up-railways-over-safety-measures-seeks-detailed-affidavit-on-fund-allocation-and-travel-insurance-disparity
Trending Judiciary
SC Pulls Up Railways Over Safety Measures, Seeks Detailed Affidavit on Fund Allocation and Travel Insurance Disparity [Read Order]

Supreme Court pulls up Railways over slow safety progress, seeks detailed affidavit on fund allocation and says counter ticket passengers cannot be denied travel insurance.

13 March, 2026 02:04 PM
madras-hc-acquits-woman-in-husbands-murder-case-says-section-106-evidence-act-cannot-replace-prosecutions-burden-of-proof
Trending Judiciary
Madras HC Acquits Woman in Husband’s Murder Case; Says Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Replace Prosecution’s Burden of Proof [Read Judgment]

Madras High Court acquits woman in husband’s murder case, holding Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot substitute the prosecution’s primary burden of proof.

13 March, 2026 02:11 PM
allahabad-hc-lists-waseem-rizvis-pil-challenging-functioning-and-composition-of-up-sunni-central-waqf-board-after-four-weeks
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Lists Waseem Rizvi’s PIL Challenging Functioning and Composition of UP Sunni Central Waqf Board After Four Weeks [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court lists Waseem Rizvi’s PIL challenging the functioning and composition of the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board; Court seeks further hearing on key contention.

14 March, 2026 12:31 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email