Caselaws On Constitution of India

Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction in SARFAESI matters – High Courts should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act – CELIR LLP vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai ) Pvt. Ltd 2023 INSC 838

Article 13,14, 19, 21- Fundamental rights do not exist in silos, the Supreme Court observed while it referred the challenge against constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC (sedition) to a larger bench.The court noted that the Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar did not : (1) make a distinction between the State which falls within the ambit of Article 19(2) and the Government, which does not (2) consider the validity of the provision against a constitutional challenge on the basis of Article 14. The court also rejected the Union Government’s plea to defer considering whether a reference should be made to a larger bench. It had submittted that the Parliament is in the process of reenacting the provisions of the Penal Code and the Bill has been placed before a Standing Committee. “The validity of the prosecutions which have been launched or would be launched so long as Section 124A continues to remain on the statute would have to be assessed under it. The issue of the validity of the provision for the period that it continues to operate would, therefore, need to be determined.”, the court noted – S G Vombatkere vs Union of India WP(C) 682 of 2021

Article 136 – The jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in favour of the party even suo moto when the Court is satisfied that compelling ground for its exercise exists. However, such suo moto power should be used very sparingly with caution and circumspection. The Court held that the power must be exercised in the rarest of the rare cases. – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat 2023 INSC 829

Article 136 – An order refusing special leave to appeal by a non­speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat 2023 INSC 829

Article 20 – Sub-article (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution consists of two parts. The first part prohibits any law that prescribes judicial punishment for violation of law with retrospective effect. Subarticle (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution does not apply to civil liability, as distinguished from punishment for a criminal offence. Further, what is prohibited is conviction or sentence for any offence under an ex post facto law, albeit the trial itself is not prohibited. Trial under a procedure different from the one when at the time of commission of an offence, or by a court different from the time when the offence was committed is not unconstitutional on account of violation of sub-article (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution. It may be different, if the procedure or the trial is challengeable on account of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution or violation of any other fundamental right- The right under first part of sub-article (1) to Article 20 of the Constitution is a very valuable right, which must be safeguarded and protected by the courts as it is a constitutional mandate – the second part of sub-article (1) to Article 20, which states that a person can only be subjected to penalties prescribed under the law at the time when the offence for which he is charged was committed. Any additional or higher penalty prescribed by any law after the offence was committed cannot be imposed or inflicted on him. The sub-article does not prohibit substitution of the penalty or sentence which is not higher or greater than the previous one or modification of rigours of criminal law – Article 20(1) of the Constitution only and only confines to conviction and sentence. It does not at all refer to any procedural part which may result into conviction or acquittal and/or sentence. (Para 26-30, 35) CBI vs RR Kishore – 2023 INSC 817

Article 13 – Once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part-III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, still born, unenforceable and non est – The declaration made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director,CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682 will have retrospective operation. This means that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e. 11.09.2003 – CBI vs RR Kishore – 2023 INSC 817

Article 32 – Manner of entertaining and considering Public Interest Litigation – referred to directions issued in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 – In matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise, the court should leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or is arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power, Courts will not interfere with such matter – Supreme Court dismissed PIL challenging a cabinet decision that approved certain structural and procedural reforms in the telecom sector –“We do not think such Cabinet decisions could be lightly interfered with by a Court of law in the absence of there being any particulars or materials brought to the notice of the Court assailing the Cabinet decisions, as being unconstitutional or arbitrary in nature or contrary to law.” Anshul Gupta vs Prime Minister Office WP(C) 635/2023

Article 136 – High Court order on administrative side- Is SLP challenging this order maintainable? No Special Leave Petition can be filed against the administrative order – Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial – Nimmanapally Surya Reddy vs Honorable Chief Justice High Court Of Telangana –  MA 1281/2023 

Can legislature set aside a judgment ? What is Doctrine of Abrogation ? Law on the adoption of the legislative device of abrogation, to remove the basis of a judgment of a Court in a legislation – A legislature cannot directly set aside a judicial decision. However, when a competent legislature retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of a judgment to make the decision ineffective, the same is a valid legislative exercise provided it does not transgress on any other constitutional limitation- There is no legal impediment to enacting a law to validate a legislation which has been held by a court to be invalid, provided, such a law removes the basis of the judgment of the court, by curing the defects of the legislation as it stood before the amendment.-The validating legislation may be retrospective. It must have the effect that the judgment pointing out the defect would not have been passed, if the altered position as sought to be brought in by the validating statute existed before the court at the time of rendering its judgment.- Retrospective amendment should be reasonable and not arbitrary and must not be violative of any Constitutional limitations.- Setting at naught a decision of a court without removing the defect pointed out in the said decision is opposed to the rule of law and the scheme of separation of powers under the Constitution of India.- Abrogation is not a device to circumvent an unfavourable judicial decision. If enacted solely with the intention to defy a judicial pronouncement, such amendment/legislation may be declared as ultra-vires.- NHPC Ltd vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 INSC 810

Article 226 – For striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made -Supreme Court sets aside HC judgment that had struck down Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998 – Union of India vs Manjurani Routray – 2023 INSC 787

Article 136Even after leave is granted and appeal is admitted, the appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist to reverse the findings, or grave injustice will be done if the decision under challenge is not interfered with.” – –M Sivadasan (D) vs A Saudamini (D) 2023 INSC 774