Trace Your Case

Categories
Federalism - History and Typologies

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) 8 SCC 501

ISSUE:

If the Government of NCTD is given the necessary resources, is it then competent to exercise this function, or must posting orders of public services be approved by the President of India?

Does the GNCTD have the authority to issue executive orders in accordance with the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act of 2011 and the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Schemes) Rules of 2001 without first seeking the Lieutenant Governor's opinion or approval?

Whether the Lieutenant Governor has the authority to do so under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to the exclusion of the GNCTD?

RULE:

If a provision of a legislation approved by the Legislative Assembly conflicts with a provision of a law passed by Parliament regarding a certain issue, the latter will take precedence and the former will be repealed. This applies to any subject, regardless of whether it was passed before, after, or in accordance with a law passed by the Legislative Assembly or a prior law that was not a law passed by the Legislative Assembly.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Federalism - History and Typologies

State of Karnataka v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 69

ISSUE:

Whether the suit under Art.131 is maintainable?

Whether the notification issued by the Central Government is ultra vires the power of the government under s.3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952?

If the same is within the ambit of s.3 and whether s.3 is unconstitutional?

RULE:

The Supreme Court's initial jurisdiction over issues affecting the scope or existence of a legal right is addressed in Article 131. Such authority shall be exercised in issues involving the Central Government and one or more States, between States, or between the Government of a State and another State. Only when an issue of law or fact arises can the Court take up a dispute under Article 131 of the Constitution. Additionally, it depends on how much of a legal right is at stake.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Administrative Discretion

Kesavan Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1961 Ker 23

ISSUE:

Whether by the administrative discretion given to the Director there is a duty casted by law?

Whether the discretionary power under the rule can be controlled by self-created rules of Policy?

RULE:

Rule 127E of the Travancore Education Code provided that no English School Leaving Certificate would be granted to any person unless he has been a pupil on the rolls of Form VI of a recognised English High School during the whole school year in which he had applied for a certificate. Moreover, he should have completed fifteen years of age on or before the first day of July of the year in which he had applied for the certificate.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Control on Executive Law Making

Himmat Lal v. Commissioner of Police AIR 1973 SC 87

ISSUE:

Whether the Powers of the Police Commissioner under Bombay Police Act, 1951 violative of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens to hold public meetings under Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution?

RULE:

The State cannot by law abridge or take away the right of assembly by prohibiting assembly on every public street or public place. The State can only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of each citizen and can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Control on Executive Law Making

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala AIR 1987 SC 748 

ISSUE:

Is the expulsion of the 3 students from a school in Kerala justified under Kerala Education Act (Section 36), Kerala Education Rules(Rule 6 and 9), and Section 3 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971?

Whether the expulsion of the children from the school is consistent with the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?

RULE:

There was no legal provision that obligates anyone to sing the National Anthem, and it is not disrespectful to the Anthem. The court ordered that the students be permitted to study in the school without any hindrance.

Further, the court had observed that our traditions taught us tolerance, our philosophy preaches tolerance, and our Constitution practices tolerance hence we should not dilute it.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Control on Executive Law Making

Kumari Regina v. St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School and Another, AIR 1971 SC 1920

ISSUE:

Whether the rules under which the appeal was filed and the order was made were only administrative instructions by the Government to its educational officers?

RULE:

Section 56 of the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920 was emphasized in the ruling by the Supreme Court.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Control on Executive Law Making

K. M. Shanmugam v. S. R. V. S. Private Limited and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1626

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, as the error, if any, was one of fact and that the directions issued by the Government under s. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act?

RULE:

Section 43 and 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Control on Executive Law Making

Union of India v. K. P. Joseph and Others, AIR 1973 SC 303

ISSUE:

Whether the order applied to the first respondent as he was reemployed before 25/11/1958?

Whether the order was justifiable and writ lay?

RULE:

There are administrative rights that confer rights and impose duties. it is because an administrative order can abridge take away rights that the Court imported the principle of natural justice of audi altram partem into this area.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Control on Executive Law Making

B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 363

ISSUE:

Whether the petition was maintainable?

Whether the bye-law requires the vacancy of the director and whether it should be publicized?

RULE:

It is not for the court to decide who is superior to the two candidates’ members of the Council was eminent persons and they may be presumed to have taken into account all relevant considerations before concluding.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Control on Executive Law Making

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2411

ISSUE:

Whether there is a warrant for a second Review Committed under Rule 16(3)?

RULE:

The principle governing the order of preventive detention about effective representation against such order, is not applicable in the case of an order for compulsory retirement which casts no stigma on a government servant. The test which has been laid down in the case of preventive detention is in the context of the right to individual liberty of a person which is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution while the order of compulsory retirement is passed in respect of a government servant who has ceased to have a right, as such, to continue in Government service under the rules governing his employment.

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