Trace Your Case

Categories
Financial Federalism

Prof. Bhim Singh v. Union of India, Union Home Secretary (2010) 5 SCC 538

ISSUE:

Whether undertrial prisoners (UTPs) languishing in jails for periods exceeding half of the maximum sentence for their alleged offense have an automatic right to bail.

Whether Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be implemented to address the issue of undertrials in Indian prisons?

RULE:

Principle of Fair Trial: The court emphasized the necessity of ensuring that all individuals, particularly under-trial prisoners, are afforded a fair trial. By facilitating timely hearings and reviews of detention, the court sought to uphold the rights of these individuals and prevent indefinite detention without trial.

Right to Liberty: The court recognised the right to liberty as a fundamental right. By mandating the release of under-trial prisoners who have completed the stipulated period of detention, the court aimed to prevent unjust and prolonged incarceration, particularly for individuals who may have already served a significant portion of their potential sentence.

Legislative Intent: The court interpreted the legislative provisions concerning under-trial detention, particularly emphasizing the need for effective implementation of laws designed to protect the rights of such prisoners. The court acted on the intent of the law to avoid excessive detention and to ensure that the rights of under-trial prisoners are respected.

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

Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab (AIR 1964 SC 381)

ISSUE:

Does a presidential order suspending rights during an emergency prevent challenging the factual basis of a detention order?

Whether the service of an order of detention to the appellant is valid when already a person is in custody?

Whether the plea of mala fide raised by the appellant will be acceptable?

RULE:

Even during a state of emergency, a person has the right to challenge the factual basis of a detention order issued under the Preventive Detention Act. This right is not suspended by a presidential order issued under Article 359(1) of the Indian Constitution.

The right to personal liberty is fundamental and distinct from the remedy available to enforce it. Suspending the right to enforce the right to liberty (Article 21) does not extinguish the right to challenge the legality of the detention itself.

There is a difference between suspension of fundamental rights and suspension of enforceability. In the case of the right to move to the Court for enforcement, which is suspended, the rights still remain alive theoretically.

A person cannot be served an order of detention when he is already in jail due to pending criminal proceedings against him in an alleged offense.

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

Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, 2022 SCC Online SC 657

ISSUE:

Whether an Indian importer can be subject to the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on the component of ocean freight paid by the foreign seller to a foreign shipping line, on a reverse charge basis?

Whether GST Council recommendations are binding on Union and States?

RULE:

The levy of IGST on the service component of the transaction violates the principle of composite supply under the CGST Act.

The four canons of taxation require clear identification of taxable event, person liable to pay, rate of tax, and value to which rate applies.

A transaction having territorial nexus with India can be taxed even if some aspects occur outside Indian territory, provided there's statutory backing.

The doctrine of cooperative federalism requires that federal units have equal legislative powers unless explicitly stated otherwise in the Constitution.

The principle against double taxation prevents levying tax twice on the same transaction when it's already included in a composite supply.

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

State of Assam v. B.K.Das, AIR 1973 SC 1252

ISSUE:

Whether a government servant has a right to be continued in service beyond the age of superannuation, even if they are efficient and physically fit for work?

Whether selective retention of some government servants after retirement age amounts to discrimination?

RULE:

Executive instructions, unlike statutory rules, do not confer any legal rights and cannot form the basis for legal action.

Government has discretionary power to retain or retire public servants after superannuation age based on their efficiency and public service requirements.

Retention of some efficient employees beyond retirement age while retiring others does not constitute discrimination if based on valid assessment of their performance.

However, this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith.

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

Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 853

ISSUE:

Whether Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars all legal challenges to election-related matters before the completion of the election process?

Whether the EC's order for re-poll can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226?

Whether the EC's powers under Article 324 are subject to principles of natural justice?

RULE:

Natural Justice: The court emphasized that decisions affecting elections must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness and transparency in administrative actions.

Judicial Review: The court recognised the right to judicial review over decisions made by the Election Commission, particularly when such decisions could infringe on electoral rights or democratic processes.

Discretionary Power of the Election Commission: While the EC has broad powers to ensure free and fair elections, these powers must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

Accountability of Public Authorities: The ruling highlighted that public officials, including those in electoral offices, are accountable for their actions, especially when those actions affect the democratic process.

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

D.A.V. College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1731

ISSUE:

Whether Hindus can be considered a minority community in the State of Punjab for the purposes of Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution?

RULE:

Fundamental Rights of Minorities: The Court emphasized the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This includes the right to choose the medium of instruction and script, which is guaranteed under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution.

Legislative Competence: The principle that no State has the legislative power to prescribe a particular medium of instruction for higher education that infringes upon the Parliament's authority under Item 66 of List I, which relates to coordinating and determining standards in such institutions.

Harmonious Construction: The Court utilized the doctrine of harmonious construction to reconcile conflicting legislative powers between State and Union laws, asserting that Union legislation prevails when there is an overlap regarding educational matters.

Non-Infringement of Rights: The Court held that the State must harmonize its powers to prescribe the medium of instruction with the rights of minorities, ensuring that they are not compelled to adopt a medium or script that does not reflect their cultural and linguistic identity.

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

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

ISSUE:

Whether the ordinance issued by the President on June 27, 1975, was unconstitutional?

Whether a writ petition of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is maintainable for enforcing Article 21 during a national emergency proclaimed under Article 359(1) of the Constitution?

Whether there was any scope for judicial review during an emergency?

RULE:

Presidential Supremacy during Emergency - During a declared Emergency, Presidential orders have ultimate authority over fundamental rights and executive actions cannot be challenged in courts, even if they are arbitrary.

Doctrine of Eclipse - The fundamental rights are not permanently extinguished but temporarily suspended or 'eclipsed' during the Emergency period and automatically revive once Emergency is lifted.

Parliamentary Sovereignty - Parliament has supreme power to modify or suspend fundamental rights during Emergency, and courts must defer to legislative wisdom during such times.

Doctrine of Basic Rights (from Justice Khanna's dissent) - Certain fundamental rights exist independent of the Constitution and cannot be suspended even during Emergency, as rule of law must prevail over arbitrary state action.

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

State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1.

ISSUE:

Whether the term "industry" in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 includes operations relating to the State's "social forestry" department, which primarily focuses on environmental welfare?

Whether the conflicting interpretations between Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar be revisited in light of the binding precedent set by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa?

RULE:

An "industry" involves organized cooperation between employers and employees for producing goods or services aimed at satisfying human wants or needs, excluding sovereign functions like law enforcement, justice dispensation, or legislation.

The dominant nature test applies when entities perform both industrial and sovereign functions, focusing on the primary nature of their activities.

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

SK Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983) II LLJ 429 1983 (4) SCC 214

ISSUE:

Whether Life Insurance Corporation Development Officers qualify as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947?

Whether public sector businesses are justified in submitting preliminary objections to the maintainability of industrial dispute references?

RULE:

A "workman" is any person employed in an industry to do manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work for hire or reward, but excludes individuals employed in managerial or administrative roles regardless of the job titles.

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

SK Maini v. M/S Carona Sahu Company Ltd. (1994) 3 SCC 510

ISSUE:

Whether the appellant, Shri S.K. Maini, is classified as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, given his given his administrative, managerial, and clerical duties?

Whether the Labour Court and the High Court erred in the fairness of the domestic enquiry against Maini, particularly considering the Enquiring Officer's role and Maini's denial of legal representation?

RULE:

An individual is classified as a "workman" if their role is primarily manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory in nature, and not administrative or managerial.

Courts may intervene in a domestic enquiry if the employee is denied a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

Job designation alone is insufficient; the actual nature of the duties performed takes precedence in determining whether someone is a "workman."

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