Category: Miscellaneous

ISSUE:

Whether the ex parte enquiry held by Managing Director of the Corporation into the matter was in violation of natural justice?

Whether the Managing Director was justified in cancelling the written agreement with the petitioner after a lapse of a year, without putting him to notice?

RULE:

The court applied principles of natural justice, emphasizing that parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, particularly in administrative decisions that affect their rights.

No prejudice must be caused to the person who is alleging the breach of Principles of natural justice which includes the rule of audi alteram partem.

The doctrine of proportionality was considered, where actions taken must be appropriate and not excessive in relation to the objectives sought.

The court also examined the distinction between public law and private law, determining that cases involving public elements can be adjudicated under public law principles.

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.

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.

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.

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.