Search results
- The office of profit controversy now engulfing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi had first seen Samajwadi Party’s Rajya Sabha MP Jaya Bachchan losing her membership of the Upper House.
www.deccanherald.com/india/jaya-bachchan-first-victim-office-2070393
People also ask
Was Jaya Bachchan first victim of office of profit Saga?
Who was first victim of office of profit Saga?
Why is Jaya Bachchan v Union of India important?
Who is petitioner Jaya Bachchan?
Sep 30, 2023 · The Case of ‘Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006)’, is an important case related to ‘Office of Profit’. At that time, Jaya Bachchan was a member of Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh, and when she was member of Rajya Sabha, Government of Uttar Pradesh appoint her on 14th July, 2004 as Chairperson of the U.P. Film Development Council.
Jun 4, 2024 · Many people have been disqualified using this provision of “office of profit”. In this case, Mrs. Jaya Bachchan’s eligibility was challenged using the same as a ground of contention. Details of the case. Name of the petitioner: Jaya Bachchan. Name of the respondent: Union of India. Court: Supreme Court of India. Case type: Writ petition ...
- Rachit Garg
Aug 12, 2024 · In relation to the office of profit granted by article 102 of the indian constitution, this is a historic case. On May 8, 2006, Y.K. Sabharwal Cji, C.K. Thakker, and R.V. Raveendran, a three-judge bench, rendered a decision. Jaya Bachchan, the petitioner, filed a civil writ suit against the defendants, Union of India & Ors.,
Bachchan was first elected in 2004 as the Member of Parliament from the Samajwadi Party, representing Uttar Pradesh in the Rajya Sabha till March 2006. [27] She was disqualifed in 2006 for holding an office of profit.
Apr 20, 2023 · It was decided by a three-judge bench of Y.K Sabharwal Cji, C.K. Thakker, and R.V. Raveendran on 8 May 2006. The petitioner, Jaya Bachchan filed a civil Writ Petition before the apex court against the defendants, Union of India & Ors. Challenging her disqualification as a member of the Rajya Sabha. Facts.
In Biharilal Dobray's Case (supra) it was held that respondent was holding an office of profit under the State Government and his nomination was rightly rejected by the Returning Office. In that case, the only question was whether the post the respondent was holding was one under State Government or not.
