Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: admin

Categories
Governance Through Administrative Actions

Macleods Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India before the Madras High Court (2012)

ISSUE:

Whether a notification issued by the Central Government imposing a ban on the manufacture, sale and distribution of a drug named "Gatifloxacin" is valid?

RULE:

Courts are not expected to supply any omission as per principles of interpretation of statutes.

Principles of natural justice are not a pre-requisite for legislative functions.

The courts are obliged to apply the "precautionary principle" in situations in which there is a risk to human health.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Excessive Legislation

Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India AIR 2022 SC 2713

ISSUE:

Whether the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“Act”) infringes upon the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India?

Whether the provision of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is constitutionally valid?

Whether Section 3 of the Act is ultra vires to the Constitution due to excessive delegation of legislative power?

RULE:

The delegation of legislative power is permissible if it is necessary to fulfil the objectives of a statute, but the delegation must not result in excessive delegation or a transfer of core legislative functions to the executive.

The jurisdiction of High Courts can be restricted in matters where specialized tribunals have been created for adjudication of complex subject matters. However, the jurisdiction of High Courts cannot be completely ousted by the creation of such tribunals.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Rule Against Bias

Dimes v. The Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal, (1852) 3 HL Cas 759

ISSUE:

Whether the Court could declare Judge Burrell’s decision void due to his financial interest in the Grand Junction Canal Company?

Whether a judge with a pecuniary interest in a case violates the principles of natural justice?

Whether the Court should disqualify a judge to maintain public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality?

RULE:

A judge must not preside over a case in which they have a financial interest, as it violates the duty of impartiality and the principle of natural justice, "no man shall be a judge in his own cause."

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Idea of Procedural Fairness

Durrayappah v. Fernando [1967] 3 W.L.R. 289

ISSUE:

Whether the Privy Council could decide if the Minister’s dissolution of the Jaffna Municipal Council violated the principles of natural justice?

Whether the principle of "audi alteram partem" (right to a fair hearing) applies to the exercise of administrative powers?

Whether the dissolution of the Jaffna Municipal Council was lawful without providing the council an opportunity to defend itself?

RULE:

Administrative decisions affecting rights or property must comply with the principles of natural justice unless explicitly excluded by statute.

The principle of audi alteram partem requires a fair hearing before a decision is made that impacts rights or property.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Idea of Procedural Fairness

Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40

ISSUE:

Whether the Mr Ridge’s dismissal by the Watch Committee was void due to failure to comply with principles of natural justice?

Whether the Watch Committee acted within the statutory framework under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, in dismissing Mr. Ridge?

Whether the absence of adherence to Police (Discipline) Regulations renders the dismissal procedurally invalid?

RULE:

Decision-making bodies must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including providing notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard (audi alteram partem).

Actions by administrative bodies must avoid arbitrariness and align with statutory or regulatory requirements.

Decisions taken without observing natural justice are deemed void rather than voidable.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Rule Against Bias

Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 496

ISSUE:

Whether the allocation of government jobs and educational seats based on caste quotas under the OBC (Other Backward Classes) category is constitutional?

Whether the creamy layer should be excluded from the socially and educationally backward class?

Whether the delegation of power to the Union Government regarding criteria for identification of backward class was constitutionally valid?

RULE:

The Constitution of India allows for special provisions to advance the education and employment opportunities of socially and educationally backward classes.

The concept of the “creamy layer” refers to economically advanced individuals within backward classes who should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Idea of Procedural Fairness

CCSU v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374

ISSUE:

Whether the allocation of government jobs and educational seats based on caste quotas under the OBC (Other Backward Classes) category is constitutional?

Whether the creamy layer should be excluded from the socially and educationally backward class?

Whether the delegation of power to the Union Government regarding criteria for identification of backward class was constitutionally valid?

RULE:

The Constitution of India allows for special provisions to advance the education and employment opportunities of socially and educationally backward classes.

The concept of the “creamy layer” refers to economically advanced individuals within backward classes who should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Rule Against Bias

Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 308

ISSUE:

Whether the approval of the nationalization scheme by the State Government violated the principles of natural justice?

Whether the procedure adopted in delegating the hearing of objections to the Secretary, instead of the decision-making authority, was legally valid?

Whether Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, amounted to colourable legislation infringing on the petitioners’ fundamental rights?

RULE:

Principles of natural justice require an impartial authority to hear and decide disputes.

Delegation of duties in quasi-judicial acts must comply with statutory requirements.

A law is termed "colourable legislation" if it indirectly achieves what cannot be done directly.

Administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must adhere to due process.

The Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights in the public interest, but such restrictions must meet proportionality tests.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Idea of Procedural Fairness

In Re HK (An Infant) [1967] QB 617

ISSUE:

Whether the immigration officer, in exercising discretion to refuse admission to H.K., acted fairly and in accordance with the rules of natural justice?

Whether mandamus or certiorari is the appropriate legal remedy to challenge the refusal of admission?

RULE:

Immigration officers must act fairly and observe natural justice to the extent permitted by the legislative framework. They must consider evidence impartially.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Rule Against Bias

J. Mohapatra and Co. and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1572

ISSUE:

Whether the presence of author-members in the committee violates the principle of impartiality and fairness?

Whether the doctrine of necessity applies to justify the participation of author-members in the selection process?

Whether the method of selecting books under administrative resolutions is fair and unbiased?

RULE:

The principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one shall be a judge in their own cause) ensures that individuals with a vested interest in a matter should not participate in decisions where they have a personal stake, maintaining fairness and impartiality in judicial and decision-making processes.

The doctrine of necessity applies only if there is no alternative course of action available.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here