Trace Your Case

Categories
Legislative Competence

Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce (1947) 49 BOMLR 568

ISSUE:

Does the Bengal Moneylenders Act, which was passed by the State Legislatures, have Constitutional validity?

RULE:

According to the Pith and Substance theory of Constitutional law, when a Court must decide whether a law applies to a topic that is mentioned in one list or another, it must first consider the topic at hand.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Union and State

M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. AIR 2005 SC 325

ISSUE:

Is granting sanction for prosecuting the Ministers a function which could be exercised by the Governor “at his discretion” within the meaning of these words as used in Article 163 of the Constitution of India?

RULE:

The Governor cannot act at his discretion there would be a complete breakdown of the rule of law since it would then be open for Governments to refuse sanction despite overwhelming material showing that a prima facie case is made out.

It would then lead to a situation where people in power may break the law with impunity safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted as the requisite sanction will not be granted.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Union and State

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) 3 SCC 1

ISSUE:

Whether Article 213 of the Constitution of India confers a mandatory obligation upon the Executive to table an Ordinance before the Legislature?

Whether a re-promulgation of the Ordinance is permissible under the Constitution of India?

Whether an act through an Ordinance remains valid even after the Ordinance ceases to operate?

RULE:

Article 213 of the Constitution of India states that “In the event of a lapse in legislative action, the governor retains the authority to issue executive orders.”

The Governor has the power to promulgate Ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session and these Ordinances must be approved by the State Legislature within 6 weeks of its reassembly.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Legislative Competence

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) SCC (3) 569

ISSUE:

Whether Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be converted into one under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

RULE:

The acts carried out by multiple people for a shared goal are defined in Section 34(2) of the Indian Penal Code. According to this, any member of a group who engages in illegal conduct with the same motives and goals is held equally responsible for the crime as if it were committed by one person alone.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Legislative Competence

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Bihar (1983) AIR 1019, (1983) SCR (3) 130

ISSUE:

Whether the subject matter of the impugned legislation was competently enacted under Article 246 of the Constitution of India?

RULE:

According to the Pith and Substance Theory of Constitutional law, when a Court must decide whether a law applies to a topic that is mentioned in one list or another, it must first consider the topic at hand.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Union and State

Har Sharan Verma v. State of U.P. (1985) AIR 282

ISSUE:

Whether after the Amendment to Article 173 of the Constitution of India, it was not open to the Governor to appoint a person who was not a member of the Legislature of the State as a Minister?

Whether Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India would only apply to a person who had been a Minister but who ceased to be a member of the Legislature for some reason, such as the setting aside of his election in any election petition?

RULE:

The Sixteenth Amendment Clause (a) of Article 173 of the Constitution of India was amended by the addition of a clause that required a candidate at an election to the Legislature to make and subscribe before some person had been authorized on that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule to the Constitution. adherence to the treaty and international responsibilities. It is one thing to state that Parliament may pass legislation about extraterritorial issues or causes since they affect or have a connection to India.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Legislative Competence

GVK Industries v. Income Tax Officer (2011) 4 SCC 36

ISSUE:

Whether the Parliament is legally limited from making laws on extra-territorial features or causes that have no direct or indirect, physical or intangible impact on any area of India, Indians' interests, welfare, well-being, and security?

Can the Parliament have the power to legislate "for" a region other than India or a part of it?

RULE:

The Parliament of India has the authority to legislate on matters that extend beyond India's borders so long as there is some connection to the country. The Parliament's authority to legislate under Clause (1) of Article 245 of the Constitution of India may not extend to extraterritorial characteristics or causes that have no bearing on or connection to India.

Article 51 of the Constitution of India affirms India's commitment to preserving "just and honourable relations" by encouraging adherence to the treaty and international responsibilities. It is one thing to state that Parliament may pass legislation about extraterritorial issues or causes since they affect or have a connection to India.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Legislative Competence

Governor General in Council v. Province of Madras (1945) 47 BOMLR 629

ISSUE:

Whether any attempt to impose a tax on the first sales of products made or produced in India in Madras would be outside the scope of the Respondent's legislative authority and ultra vires?

RULE:

The Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 levies a tax on the sale of products, which is its “Pith and Substance.” It can only be accurately described as a “tax on the selling of products”.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Union and State

Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors (1987) AIR 579, (1987) SCR (1) 798

ISSUE:

Whether the Governor can mechanically re-promulgate the ordinance for an indefinite period of time, and thus take over the power (from the legislature) to legislate through the powers conferred on him under Article 213 of the Constitution of India?

Whether the petitioners have a legal standing to challenge the validity of the re-promulgation of the ordinances?

RULE:

Article 213 of the Constitution of India states that “In the event of a lapse in legislative action, the governor retains the authority to issue executive orders.”

The Governor of a State may publish such Ordinance as the circumstances seem to necessitate at any time, except during the session of the Legislative Assembly of a State or, if there is a Legislative Council in a State, except during the session of both Houses of the Legislature to an extent that:

(a) The introduction of a Bill with identical provisions into the Legislature would have required the prior sanction of the President under this Constitution, or

(b) The Governor would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill with identical provisions for the consideration of the President, the Governor shall not, without instructions from the President, promulgate any such Ordinance.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Union and State

A. K. Roy, Etc v. Union of India & Anr (1982) AIR 710, (1982) SCR (2) 272

ISSUE:

Whether the National Security Ordinance is constitutional or not?

Whether the preventive detention is a valid measure for regulating the liberties of an individual?

Whether the provisions of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 are extremely vague and can easily deprive a person of his liberty?

RULE:

As long as the preventive detention law is made within the legislative power arising out of a legislative entry and is within the conditions and restrictions on that power, it cannot be construed that preventive detention is disallowed under the Indian Constitution.

Further, while care must be taken to restrict the application of the National Security Act, 1980, the statute cannot be struck down for being vague or uncertain.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now