Author: TYC

ISSUE:

Whether the impugned notification (No. 142/86-Cus.) was validly promulgated and enforceable, given the alleged delay in making it known to the affected parties?

Whether the notification violated the conditions prescribed under Section 25(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, by effectively imposing a new duty not provided for under the statutory provisions?

Whether the enhanced duty constituted an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?

RULE:

A notification or subordinate legislation acquires enforceability upon its publication in the Official Gazette, which is deemed sufficient for making the law known within the territory it operates.

Taxes or duties, including customs duties, are not per se violative of Article 19(1)(g) unless they destroy the right to carry on trade or business, with excessiveness alone not constituting a violation.

ISSUE:

Does the State Government possess the authority under its executive power to prescribe textbooks for use in schools prior to the enactment of specific statutory provisions?

Is the prescription of textbooks by the State Government and the Board consistent with the principles of non-discrimination under Article 14 and the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?

RULE:

Executive Power of the State (Article 162): The State Government can exercise executive power in matters where it has legislative competence, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions, provided such actions do not infringe upon the rights of individuals.

Principle of Ultra Vires: Statutory bodies, such as the Board of Secondary Education, can only exercise powers expressly conferred upon them by their enabling statute. Powers not explicitly granted or necessarily implied are deemed ultra vires and invalid.

ISSUE:

Whether the Jaipur Opium Act, 1923, enacted by a resolution of the Council of Ministers, without promulgation or publication, constituted valid law?

Whether the retrospective amendment of the Jaipur Opium Act in 1938 could validate the law retroactively without original compliance with promulgation or publication requirements?

RULE:

A law cannot become operative unless it is promulgated or published in a recognisable manner, ensuring the public can reasonably access and understand it.

In the absence of specific legal provisions or customary rules, the principles of natural justice require that laws affecting rights and liberties must be brought to public notice through adequate publication.

ISSUE:

Whether the notification issued under Section 6(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, was invalid due to non-publication in Gujarati in a local newspaper?

Whether the procedural requirements of publication under Section 6(5), as read with Section 5, are mandatory or directory?

RULE:

Procedural safeguards in statutes with penal consequences, especially those restricting trade, are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to, as they protect the rights of affected parties by ensuring proper notice and opportunity for objections.

The term "shall" is presumptively mandatory, especially where it governs actions that significantly impact legal rights, unless there is compelling evidence of legislative intent to treat it as directory.

ISSUE:

Whether the Bar Council of India had the authority under the Advocates Act, 1961, to enact the Training Rules, 1995, requiring pre-enrolment training as a condition for enrollment?

Whether the Training Rules, 1995, violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by being arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory?

RULE:

Rule-making authorities cannot impose additional conditions for enrollment beyond those explicitly permitted by statutory provisions.

Any rule prescribing pre-enrollment training or similar requirements must derive clear authority from the enabling legislation; otherwise, such rules are ultra vires and invalid.

ISSUE:

Whether Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, which allows for the prosecution of shareholders and directors of a private company owning a mine, violates Article 14 of the Constitution?

Whether regulations framed without adherence to mandatory procedural safeguards, such as consultation with prescribed authorities, can be deemed valid?

RULE:

A statutory provision ensuring equal liability among individuals similarly situated does not violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, provided it serves a legitimate objective and avoids arbitrary discrimination.

Compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards is a prerequisite for the validity of regulations. Non-adherence renders the regulations invalid unless a specific exception is provided by the legislature.