Category: Control on Executive Law Making

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.