Talk:S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the S. R. Bommai v. Union of India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Needs separate section for judgement / verdict
editThe section on implication and section 376 mentions lot of details but not the final judgement. We need a section that explains the following sections from the judgement in plain English
The Proclamations dated April 21, 1989 and October 11, 1991 and the action taken by the President in removing the respective Ministries and the Legislative Assemblies of the State of Karnataka and the State of Meghalaya challenged in Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1989 and Transfer Case Nos. 5 & 7 of 1992 respectively are unconstitutional. The Proclamation dated August 7, 1988 in respect of State of Nagaland is also hel d unconstitutional
The Proclamations dated December 15, 1992 and the actions taken by the President removing the Ministries and dissolving the Legislative Assemblies in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh pursuant to the said Proclamations are not unconstitutional
The Proclamation dated April 21, 1989 in respect of Karnataka (Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1989) and the Proclamation dated October 11, 1991 in respect of Meghalaya (Transferred Case Nos. 5 and 7 of 1992) are unconstitutional).
The Proclamations dated January 15, 1993 in respect of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh concerned in Civil Appeal Nos. 1692,1692-A to 1692-C of 1993, 4627-4630 of 1993, Transferred Case (C) No. 9 of 1993 and Transferred Case No. 8 of 1993 respectively are not unconstitutional. Santhoshsum1spcl (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Untitled
editThis article requires serious cleaning-up, in terms of its grammar, English usage and the jargon from Indian politics. For the article to be accessible to a wider global population, the English used has to be standardized with the rest of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.86.100.34 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)