Writ [CaseLaws]

Election Matters – The restraint, self-imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions supra, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in. The reason that the Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof – The misconceived notion being that in the ultimate eventuate, after elections are over, when such decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief could be fashioned is just that – misconceived.–  Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference 2023 INSC 804

Availability of alternative efficacious remedy is no bar to the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdictionUnion Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference 2023 INSC 804

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