Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: admin

Categories
Judicial Control of Subordinate Legislation

Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1069

ISSUE:

Whether the proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1973, as amended by the notification dated 4.4.1986, is ultra vires the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972?

Whether the restriction on the transfer of land supporting tea plantations is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the purpose of the Act?

Whether the State Government, through delegated legislation, can impose substantive obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the Parent Act?

RULE:

Delegated legislation must align with the scope of authority granted by the parent statute and cannot override or expand upon its provisions.

A rule made under a statute must fulfil two conditions:

It must conform to the provisions of the enabling statute.

It must fall within the scope of the rule-making power delegated by the legislature.

The legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative functions, including determining core policy matters, to subordinate authorities. Delegation is permissible only for ancillary details necessary to implement the statute’s purpose.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Governance Through Administrative Actions

Surinder Singh v. Central Government AIR 1986 SC 2166

ISSUE:

Whether the absence of specific rules for disposing of urban agricultural property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, invalidates such sales conducted through administrative directions?

Whether the delegated authority under Section 33 of the Act had jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance purchase price after the initial deadline?

Whether the failure to provide notice and an opportunity of hearing to the respondents violated principles of natural justice and invalidated the orders favoring the appellant?

RULE:

Exercise of Powers Without Rules: Statutory powers can be exercised even in the absence of rules unless the statute explicitly mandates otherwise. The phrase "subject to rules" indicates optional compliance if rules exist but does not preclude action without them.

Principles of Natural Justice: Orders affecting parties must adhere to natural justice by providing notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before decisions are made.

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

Taylor v. Lawrence, [2003] QB 528

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to reopen a case after final judgment has been delivered to prevent significant injustice?

Whether the test for apparent bias, as applied in this case, was correctly assessed in light of the judge’s undisclosed relationship with the claimants' solicitors?

Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the admission of fresh evidence challenging the impartiality of the original judgment?

RULE:

Residual Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal: The Court of Appeal has a residual jurisdiction to reopen appeals in exceptional circumstances to prevent significant injustice, provided that no alternative effective remedy exists. This power is exercised with discretion to ensure finality in litigation is not unnecessarily compromised.

Fair-Minded and Informed Observer Test for Bias: Apparent bias is established if, based on all the circumstances, a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there is a real possibility of bias. Judges should make full and appropriate disclosures when circumstances could reasonably raise questions about impartiality.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Governance Through Administrative Actions

Union of India v. Anglo-Afghan Agencies, AIR, 1968 SC 718

ISSUE:

Whether the Export Promotion Scheme creates enforceable obligations on the government or is merely administrative in character?

Whether the Textile Commissioner acted arbitrarily in reducing the import entitlement without adhering to principles of natural justice?

Whether the government is bound by its representations under the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the absence of a formal contract?

RULE:

Promissory Estoppel Doctrine: The government cannot arbitrarily renege on representations made in schemes or policies upon which individuals have acted to their detriment, even if such representations are not formalized contracts.

Principles of Natural Justice: Administrative authorities must act fairly, providing affected parties an opportunity to be heard and disclosing relevant evidence when decisions adversely impact their rights.

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

S. Parthasarthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 2701

ISSUE:

Whether the inquiry officer’s bias invalidates the disciplinary proceedings?

Whether the inquiry officer was authorized to conduct the inquiry after his demotion from Director-in-Charge to Deputy Director?

Whether denial of access to relevant documents amounts to a violation of the right to a reasonable defence?

RULE:

A real likelihood of bias exists if reasonable and right-minded individuals, upon considering the facts, would conclude that the inquiring officer was prejudiced.

It is not necessary to prove actual bias; the perception of bias based on objective circumstances suffices to render the inquiry invalid.

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

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 783

ISSUE:

Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, violates Articles 14, 21, and 355 of the Constitution of India by granting special provisions for illegal immigrants in Assam?

Whether the classification under Section 6A, providing different cut-off dates for determining citizenship, is arbitrary and discriminatory?

Whether the influx of illegal migrants constitutes “external aggression” and “internal disturbance” under Article 355, requiring the Union’s intervention?

Whether a constitutional challenge to a provision after a delay of 27 years since its insertion is maintainable?

RULE:

The Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to protect the lives of citizens and their culture. In cases of violations of fundamental rights, any delay in filing the petition, by itself, cannot result in its dismissal.

Though delay can be a ground for denying relief under Article 32, there is no upper limit for such delay. The issue of maintainability depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

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

Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 648

ISSUE:

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, is repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, under Article 254 of the Constitution?

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution?

Whether the doctrine of eclipse can apply to post-Constitution laws infringing fundamental rights?

RULE:

The doctrine of eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights.

Under Article 13, any post-Constitution law that contravenes fundamental rights is void ab initio, i.e., from its inception.

The test to determine repugnancy is that there must be a direct conflict between the provisions and that both laws should occupy the same field.

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

B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129

ISSUE:

Whether the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in Civil Services of the State) Act, 2018 (“2018 Reservation Act”), is constitutionally valid or not?

Whether a new statute introducing provisions similar to those struck down by the Supreme Court is invalid, when the grounds for striking down the previous Act have been cured?

Whether the principle of “efficiency of administration” under Article 335 of the Constitution is met by the 2018 Reservation Act?

Whether the concept of creamy layer applies to grant of seniority as a consequence of promotion on basis of reservation?

RULE:

Article 16(4A) of the Constitution permits the state to provide reservations in promotions for SC/STs if there is inadequate representation in services and such measures do not compromise the efficiency of administration.

Article 335 of the Constitution requires that claims of SC/STs be balanced with maintaining administrative efficiency.

Legislative actions addressing judicial decisions are valid if they correct the underlying basis of the court’s ruling without overriding it.

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

E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394

ISSUE:

Whether the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 (“the Act”), is violative of Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India?

Whether the Act is constitutionally invalid for lack of legislative competence?

Whether the subclassification of Scheduled Castes violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

RULE:

The classification of Scheduled Castes in the Constitution was meant to address the historically oppressed groups as a unified whole.

Any sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, for preferential treatment, would be discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

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

M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649

ISSUE:

Whether the order of the State of Mysore reserving 68% seats is justified under Article 15(4) of the Constitution?

Whether State governments have the authority to sub-divide backward classes into two categories – “backward” and “more backward” class?

RULE:

While adopting reservation to advance the weaker sections of society under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, care must be taken not to exclude deserving candidates from other communities from admissions to higher educational institutions.

Special provisions for reservations should generally be less than 50%. However, the exact percentage within this limit is in the domain of the State government to decide.

Special provisions under Article 15(4) of the Constitution can be made by the Union or State governments by executive order.

“Class” under Article 15(4) of the Constitution is different from “caste”.

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