Existing User Account
Gift Premium
Subscribe Premium

The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-VI]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

14 April 2024 1:53 PM IST

    • The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-VI]

    Article 16 - Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment Constitution of India; Article 16 - the intention of Article 16 was not to compromise on administrative efficiency. A certain portion (promotion) cannot be reserved for a certain class of citizen and not the others who were also initially appointed on the basis of horizontal reservation, the only exception...

    Article 16 - Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

    Constitution of India; Article 16 - the intention of Article 16 was not to compromise on administrative efficiency. A certain portion (promotion) cannot be reserved for a certain class of citizen and not the others who were also initially appointed on the basis of horizontal reservation, the only exception being SC/ST appointees as envisaged in Article 16(4A). (Para 11, S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

    Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 - Right to enter into a union is also grounded in Article 19(1)(e). (Para 226) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 (2) - Additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on right to free speech. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 & 21 rights can be enforced against private individuals & entities: Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a), 14 and 21 - Indian Penal Code 1860; Section 124A - In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769 the Constitution Bench upheld the provisions of Section 124A. The provisions of Section 124A have only been tested on the anvil of Article 19(1)(a). In view of the development of law that has taken place in the six decades since the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath Singh, it would be necessary to re-evaluate the validity of Section 124A on the basis of the doctrines which have evolved in those years particularly having a bearing on the ambit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The submissions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners would warrant consideration by a Bench of at least five Judges of this Court. Held, the appropriate course of action for a three Judge Bench of this Court would be to direct that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India so that, if so considered appropriate, the batch of cases can be heard by a Bench of five or more Judges, since the decision in Kedar Nath Singh's case (supra) was rendered by a Constitution Bench. (Para 13) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(e) - Whether a non-Tribal has the right to settle down in a Scheduled Area – Held, every citizen has a right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. However, by making a law, reasonable restrictions can be put on the said Fundamental Right as provided in Clause (5) of Article 19. Therefore, we reject the argument that non-Tribals have no right to settle down in a Scheduled Area. (Para 14) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(2) - the non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The reasons for denying a security clearance to MBL, that is, its alleged antiestablishment stance and the alleged link of the shareholders to JEIH, are not legitimate purposes for the restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In any event, there was no material to demonstrate any link of the shareholders, as was alleged. Principles of Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice ensure that justice is not only done but it is seen to be done as well. A reasoned order is one of the fundamental requirements of fair administration. (Para 56) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(a) - Press Freedom - An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a democratic republic - Its role in a democratic society is crucial for it shines a light on the functioning of the state. The press has a duty to speak truth to power, and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction. The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenised view on issues that range from socioeconomic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy. The critical views of the Channel, Media-One on policies of the government cannot be termed, 'anti-establishment'. The use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment. The action of the MIB by denying a security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views which the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a chilling effect on free speech, and in particular on press freedom. (Para 166 and 167) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a) - The grounds lined up in Article 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive. Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing claim against each other, additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) - Constitution Bench judgment- Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna unanimous. [Para 155, Majority judgment] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 19 & 21 - Horizontal Application - A fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the state or its instrumentalities - Justice BV Nagarathna dissents to say only habeas corpus remedy can be horizontally applied against private persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

    Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(1) has no applicability either to the validity or invalidity of Section 6A of the DSPE Act. (Para 36) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(3) - Test Identification Parade - Conduct of Test Identification Parade is not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - What is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution is procuring by compulsion of the positive volitional evidentiary acts of an accused. It is true that an accused may be said to be compelled to attend a test identification parade, but this compulsion does not involve any positive volitional evidentiary act. His mere attendance or the exhibition of his body at a test identification parade even though compelled, does not result in any evidentiary act until he is identified by some other agency. The identification of him by a witness is not his act, even though his body is exhibited for the purpose. His compelled attendance at a test identification parade is comparatively remote to the final evidence and cannot be said by itself to furnish any positive volitional evidentiary act. (Para 26) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(1) - the legal position to be taken into consideration is that an Amendment Act cannot post facto criminalize possession. This proposition does not require much deliberation and is well settled that retroactive criminal legislation being violative of Article 20(1), one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution is prohibited. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245

    Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 and 32 - The Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry. Yet it cannot be gainsaid that many of our constitutional values, including the right to life and personal liberty may comprehend the values which a marital relationship entails. They may at the very least entail respect for the choice of a person whether and when to enter upon marriage and the right to choose a marital partner. (Para 185) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 and 32 - Every effort must be made to practice and inculcate constitutional ideas – the ideals of human dignity, liberty, equality, and fraternity – in our everyday lives. These constitutional ideals demand that we respect the autonomy and dignity of each person. We must respect their decisions and choices. It is only when a particular decision or action is contrary to the law or an affront to constitutional values that this Court may step in. In all other instances, citizens are empowered to define the content of their lives and find meaning in their relationships. (Para 104) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - A “fair trial”, is a right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it encompasses all stages of trial including that of “investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and the trial. (Para 28) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The right to health is an intrinsic element of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Life, to be enjoyed in all its diverse elements, must be based on robust conditions of health. There has been a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the women who underwent unnecessary hysterectomies. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right to die with dignity - Passive Euthanasia - Supreme Court Constitution Bench simplifies the procedure for executing living will/advance directive by modifiying the he judgment reported in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and Another (2018) 5 SCC 1 - the Court allows the application filed by Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine seeking clarification of the judgment. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79 : (2023) 1 SCR 1137

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 – The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a person under Article 21 even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 21 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) - The exclusion of Old Indian settlers, who have permanently settled in Sikkim prior to merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975 from the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) is hereby held to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hereby struck down. (Para 13- 17) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 21 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) Proviso - Proviso to Section 10(26AAA) inasmuch as it excludes from the provision of exemption a Sikkimese woman merely because she marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008 is totally discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India - A woman is not a chattel and has an identity of her own, and the mere factum of being married ought not to take away that identity. (Para 15-17.1) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

    Article 21A - Right to education

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21A - Right to Education Act, 2009; Section 23 - B.Ed. degree holders did not pass the basic pedagogical threshold require for teaching primary classes and thus would not be able to provide 'quality' education to primary school children. (Para 31) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21A - Right to Education Act, 2009; Section 23 - The fundamental right of primary education in India not just included 'free' and 'compulsory' education for children below 14 years of age but also included 'quality' education to be imparted in such children. (Para 19) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633

    Article 22 - Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 – Power to Arrest – Directorate of Enforcement (ED) should furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing at the time of arrest. (Para 35) Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (4) - Preventive detention law cannot authorise the detention of a person beyond 3 (three) months unless an Advisory Board finds sufficient cause for such detention. (Para 59) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22(4)(a) - Period of three months specified in Article 22(4)(a) is relatable to the period of detention prior to the report of the Advisory Board and not to the period of detention subsequent thereto. (Para 44) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (4) - Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002; Section 19 and 21 - The detenue had made his representation before the authorities. The decision was taken by the Advisory Board without considering the representation. To that extent, the decision of the Advisory Board and subsequent decision of the State Government extending the period of detention becomes bad as the statutory procedural requirement have not been complied with. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (5) - illegible documents given to the detenue in preventive detention can cause prejudice in submitting a representation. This violates the principles under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, where the detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue. (Para 39) Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293 : (2023) 2 SCR 793

    Article 25 - Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - Even assuming that the ex­communication of members of the Dawoodi Bohra community is always made on religious grounds, the effect and consequences thereof, on the person excommunicated needs to be considered in the context of justiciable Constitutional rights. The ex­communication will have many civic consequences which will, prima facie, affect his fundamental right to live with dignity and the right to lead a meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21. Therefore, the question is is whether the said right of the community to ex­communicate its members can be balanced with the other fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and in particular, Article 21. (Para 31) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - the protection under Article 26(b) granted by the decision in the case of Sardar Syedna1 to the power to ex­communicate a member of the Dawoodi Bohra community, needs reconsideration as the said right is subject to morality which is understood as Constitutional morality-This issue will require examination by a larger Bench. (Para 28) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - Right to Excommunicate - prima facie, we find that the exercise of balancing the rights under Article 26(b) with other rights under Part III and in particular Article 21 was not undertaken by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sardar Syedna- This question is substantially in issue before the Bench of nine Judges in Sabrimala Temple Review ­. Moreover, the question whether the protection can be given by Article 26(b) to the practice of ex­communication is to be tested on the touchstone of the concept of Constitutional morality as the said right is subject to morality. (Para 34) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226, 227 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate - Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review - Even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. (Para 6-7) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 : AIR 2023 SC 554 : (2023) 1 SCR 961

    Article 30 - Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30 - Minority educational institution cannot claim exemption from admission & fee regulatory committee. Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30 - If an employee is continued in service by the management of any registered minority Secondary School receiving Grant-in-Aid from the State-Government, then such school would not be entitled to receive any grant in respect of the expenditure incurred for continuing such employee beyond the stipulated superannuation age. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : AIR 2023 SC 1155 : (2023) 2 SCR 487

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30(1) - It is not open to the appellant society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. (Para 16) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30(1) - Setting up a reasonable fee structure is also a component of the right to establish and administer an institution, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly or in any form - it is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving that purpose. (Para 12) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

    Article 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - there is an urgent need for a law which inter alia prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gives full effect to the other civil and social rights of LGBTQ persons. In the absence of such a law, members of the LGBTQ community will be unable to exercise their rights and freedoms to the fullest extent and will have to approach the courts for their enforcement on a case-by-case basis. (Para 263) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - The power of the Supreme Court to do justice is not limited either by the manner in which Article 32 has been constructed or by any part of the Constitution. It is amply clear from both the plain meaning of Article 32 as well as the Constituent Assembly Debates that the Supreme Court has the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of the rights incorporated in Part III of the Constitution. (Para 65) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 and 226 - The doctrine of separation of powers cannot stand in the way of the Courts issuing directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The directions, orders, or writs issued for this purpose cannot encroach upon the domain of the legislature. The Courts cannot make law, it can only interpret it and give effect to it. (Para 67) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - A Constitutional Court would not issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature or to a rule making body to enact a law on a particular subject and in a particular manner. Binu Tamta v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 969

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 and 324 - PIL for an independent audit of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs') source codes - No evidence presented by petitioner to show Election Commission's breach of its constitutional duties. The Court refrains from issuing directives on policy matters like EVM source code audits that concern election integrity, under the Election Commission's purview. No indication that the Commission isn't fulfilling its role. Petition dismissed. (Para 5) Sunit Ahya v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 824

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 – Petition to restrict the assassination of dignity of individual, community, religious saint, religious & political organisation by these broadcasting electronic channels in the name of freedom of 'Press' - to control these uncontrolled and unregulated broadcasting electronic channels - to restrict media trail, parallel trial, judgmental views and interfering in the administration of justice - to constitute an independent authority for the purpose of regulating and facilitating development of broadcasting services in India - to stop the misuse of airwaves by these broadcasting electronic channels in the name of media, press and journalism - Held, that the prayers are too wide - we have to also keep in mind the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression - a mechanism has been created to address the grievances headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court consists of members of the Civil Society as well. Moreover, this Court is dealing with hate speeches/news items in separate petitions. Therefore, declined to entertain the petition. If the petitioner so desires, he can always make a representation to the appropriate authorities pointing out alleged illegalities committed by news channels. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging appointment of Election Commissioner – Held, the appointment of the Election Commissioner, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has been examined the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155. The Constitution Bench did not pass any effective order disturbing the appointment, though the relevant files and all other factors have been taken into consideration. PIL dismissed. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - The petitioner was the Additional Advocate General of State of Uttar Pradesh seeking a writ of mandamus against the State Government to clear the bills of his outstanding professional fees. According to the State, all the outstanding bills have been disbursed to the petitioner. Held, a serious doubt whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India should be entertained at the instance of an advocate representing the State for recovery of his fees and that also when there is a serious dispute about the entitlement of the petitioner to receive fees based on certain bills. Therefore, unable to pass any further orders on this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, the other available remedies of the petitioner are expressly kept open which he can avail in accordance with law. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523

    Constitution of India, 1950; Section 32 - Revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification in respect of feature film 'Adipurush' for hurting religious sentiments and for distorting the sacred text – Held, it is inappropriate to interfere with film certifications based on the sensitivities of each individual. The Court should not become some kind of an appellate authority for the censor board. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - The parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (Para 41) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Plea to restore concession in railway tickets for senior citizens – Cannot entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as the matter involves the policy decision of the Railways whether to restore the railway concession to senior citizens as was done before on the ground of being a welfare State - the matter involving a fiscal issue, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue writ of this nature, the petitioner seeks and it is for the Government to take a call on the policy decision keeping in mind the needs of the senior citizens and the fiscal repercussions - The writ petition is dismissed. M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 370

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be maintained in order to challenge a binding judgment of the Supreme Court. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - It is trite law that this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot issue a mandamus to Parliament to legislate nor does it legislate. The constitutional power to legislate is entrusted to Parliament or, as the case may, the State Legislatures under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution - Supreme Court refuses to entertain pleas to increase age of marriage for women as 21 years. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 143

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Plea of Supreme Court Bar Association for conversion of plot allotted to the Court as lawyers' chambers cannot be entertained on the judicial side - However, matter left open to be considered on the administrative side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - SC refuses to entertain petition seeking a framework which would allow citizens to petition directly to the Parliament - The reliefs which have been sought fall exclusively within the domain of Parliament. Such directions cannot be issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Karan Garg v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 235

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - while exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision - it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person. [Para 10] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - The issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence - This question should be raised by the petitioner before the Special Court, since an answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out. (Para 46) Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86 : AIR 2023 SC 875 : (2023) 4 SCC 357

    Article 51A – Fundamental Duties

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 51A - casts an obligation on every citizen, and more so on every judge, to promote harmony, spirit of common brotherhood among all transcending religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities. [Para 12] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

    Article 77 - Conduct of business of the Government of India

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority. (Para 101) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - the notification dated 2 August 2019 was not issued in the name of the President. However, this does not render the notification invalid. The effect of not complying with Article 77 is that the Union Government cannot claim the benefit of the irrebuttable presumption that the notification dated 2 August 2019 was issued by the President. Hence, the appellants' argument that the notification dated 2 August 2019 is invalid and unconstitutional is specious. (Para 102) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

    Article 105 - Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof.

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 105(2) and 194(2) - Powers, privileges and immunities of the members of the Houses of Parliament and the State Legislatures. Do MPs/MLAs have immunity from criminal proceedings when they take bribes for votes? The judgement in P.V. Narasmiha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626 had held that legislators enjoyed immunity from prosecution in cases of bribery in relation to parliamentary vote and speech. However, the immunity would only be extended if the legislators carried out the act that they had taken the bribe for. In other words, if a legislator took a bribe to vote for a particular candidate but later decided to not go ahead with the same and voted for someone else, the immunity would not be extended to them. Held, the correctness of the majority view in P.V. Narasmiha Rao should be reconsidered by a larger Bench of seven judges. (Para 24) Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 823

    Article 131 - Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 131 - Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998; Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010; Rule 5 – Constitutional Validity of – Decision of Larger Bench pending - It is the contention of the Union of India and several of the impleaded States that this suit is not maintainable - No doubt, if this Court is required to decide the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions of the Act of 1998, it may be necessary to await the decision of the Larger Bench, but not otherwise. Therefore, at this stage, it would be premature to nonsuit the State of Meghalaya on the ground that this suit is not maintainable or to keep it on hold for all purposes, pending the decision of the Larger Bench. As the State of Meghalaya seeks to assert its right to do business in lotteries under Article 298(b) and its executive power to do so would be subject to parliamentary legislation, viz., the Act of 1998, the grievances raised by it in that context would constitute disputes which fall squarely within the four corners of Article 131 of the Constitution. The position that emerges is that the suit of the present nature and in its present form cannot be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable. (Para 13 - 15) State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427

    Article 136 - Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

    Article 136 - SLP against NCDRC's order passed in exercise of its appellate/revisional jurisdiction cannot be entertained. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution can be invoked even suo motu in compelling cases. While considering the appeal filed by another accused person, the Court noted that the evidences against all the accused persons were the same. Hence, the benefit of acquittal given to one accused has to be extended to the other accused also, even if they haven't approached the Supreme Court. (Para 17) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - No Special Leave Petition can be filed against the administrative order - Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial. Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 10A - Survey of Gyanvapi Mosque - Commission for Scientific Investigation - Application seeking a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake a scientific survey for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the construction and the age of the structure. The District Judge allowed the applications and directed the ASI to “undertake the scientific investigation / survey / excavation on the property. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Judge directing an archeological survey of the area in which the Gyanvapi Mosque is situated. However, during the course of the proceedings before the High Court, ASI has clarified on affidavit that it was neither carrying out any excavation nor would the survey involve any destruction of the property. Held that the Order of the Trial Judge under Order XXVI Rule 10A cannot prima facie be construed to be without jurisdiction. Having regard to the nature and ambit of a court appointed Commissioner, we are unable to differ with the view of the High Court, particularly while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The survey shall not involve any excavation at the site or any destruction of the structure. The entire process shall be concluded by any noninvasive methodology that may be adopted by the ASI. (Para 15 -17) Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - Even after leave is granted and appeal is admitted, the appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist to reverse the findings, or grave injustice will be done if the decision under challenge is not interfered with. (Para 8) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope and grant of special leave - the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation. But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should not entertain a petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed. The limitation, whatever they be, are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. The power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of overriding constitutional powers. (Para 24) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Concurrent finding of fact does not call for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any valid ground for interference. (Para 3) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - It is true that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, are usually, not to be interfered with. However, it is only in the presence of exceptional circumstances, this Court exercises its wide powers where there is travesty of justice and when absurd and erroneous conclusions are drawn by the Courts below. We are of the opinion that this is one such case fit for exercising the powers entrusted to us as a duty under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 17) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227 : (2023) 2 SCR 746

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Power of the Supreme Court - In the absence of very special circumstances or in the presence of gross errors of law committed by the High Court, the Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. The limitations under Article 136 are self-imposed limitations where in the ordinary course appreciation of evidence is not to be done in the absence of manifest error or the judgment, subject matter of the special leave, being ex facie perverse. (Para 17.10) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in respect of cases where concurrent findings are recorded by the Lower Courts – If doubt lingers with respect to the probability or conclusiveness of any circumstance relied on by the prosecution, forming a link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of convict, despite the existence of concurrent findings, the evidence has to be scrutinized by the Supreme Court so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and it points to the guilt of the convict and it did not brook any hypothesis other than the guilt of the convict. (Para 13) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : (2023) 2 SCR 661

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Though the Scope of Article 136 of Constitution of India is very wide, the power conferred thereunder being a very special and extraordinary power, it has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases. (Para 15) Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : AIR 2023 SC 1308

    Article 142 - Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 – Decree of divorce - Irretrievable break down of marriage - Supreme Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, and exercise its discretion under Article 142 for dissolving the marriage between the parties by balancing out the equities between the conflicting claims of the parties, however, such discretion should be exercised with great care and caution. This discretionary power could be exercised for dissolving the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable break down to do “complete justice,” though one of the spouses opposes the prayer for dissolution of marriage. (Para 17) Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 873

    Constitution of India 1950 - Article 142 cannot be invoked to override statutory provisions. The inherent powers though wide in its amplitude, cannot be exercised to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court. (Para 17) Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 846

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides - Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage - When there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Insolvency of Reliance Home Finance Ltd (RHFL) - the Supreme Court allowed the Resolution Plan (RP) proposed by Authum Investments and Infrastructure Ltd. (AIIL) to cover the debenture holders of RHFL - the plan will not cover dissenting debenture holders - the dissenting debenture holders should be provided an option to accept the terms of the resolution plan who proposed such acquisition or they can pursue other legal remedies to recover their dues. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173 : AIR 2023 SC 1459

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot issue directions in violation of the statutory provisions; and sympathy or sentiment, by itself, cannot be a ground for passing an order beyond and contrary to the legal rights. (Para 23) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : (2023) 2 SCR 1049

    Article 162 - Extent of executive power of State

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 162, 44 and Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule - Writ Petition Challenging constitution of the Committee on the Uniform Civil Code set up by the State of Uttarakhand - Dismissed - Article 162 of the Constitution indicates that the executive power of a State extends to matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws -In view of the provisions of Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, the constitution of a Committee per se cannot be challenged as ultra vires. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 22

    Article 167 - Duties of Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of information to Governor, etc.

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 167 - The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. Once such information is sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it - Not furnishing the information which was sought by the Governor would be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b). (Para 24) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : (2024) 1 SCC 407

    Article 170 - Composition of the Legislative Assemblies.

    Article 170 of Constitution not applicable to legislatures of union territories: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 170 - Article 170 deals with only the State Legislature. It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories. The reason is that the Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A and not by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI. (Para 23) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

    Article 174 - Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 174 - There can be no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted to the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion. (Para 22) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : (2024) 1 SCC 407

    Article 178 - The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

    Constitution of India; 1950; Article 178 - It was legally permissible for the Speaker to reconvene the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it was adjourned sine die without prorogation. Further, the Speaker was empowered as the sole custodian of the proceedings of the House to adjourn and reconvene the House. (Para 41) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384

    Article 200 - Assent to Bills

    Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - Casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House is not a constitutional option open to the Governor. (Para 44) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384

    Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - The Governor, as a guiding statesman, may recommend reconsideration of the entirety of the Bill or any part thereof and even indicate the desirability of introducing amendments. However, the ultimate decision on whether or not to accept the advice of the Governor as contained in the message belongs to the legislature alone. (Para 23) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384

    Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - The Governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever. (Para 24) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384

    Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - When the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the course of action which is to be followed is that which is indicated in the first proviso. (Para 25) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384

    Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - the Governor of Punjab was not empowered to withhold action on the Bills passed by the State Legislature and must act “as soon as possible”. (Para 28) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 : (2024) 1 SCC 384

    Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - Governors must return bills as soon as possible - The first proviso to Article 200 states that the Governor may “as soon as possible after the presentation” of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the State Legislature. The expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities. State of Telangana v. Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 356 : (2024) 1 SCC 405

    Article 217 - Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217 - Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court - Method of recommendation envisages that Collegium of the High Court consisting Chief Justice and two senior most judges recommends names; Government provides inputs; IB report is obtained; Supreme Court Collegium of three senior most judges takes a call. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - observing that the consultative process is to limit the judicial review, restricting it to the specified area, that is, eligibility, and not suitability - judicial review lies when there is lack of eligibility or 'lack of effective consultation'. Judicial review does not lie on 'content' of consultation. [Para 4] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - prescribes the constitutional requirement of consultation - prescribes the procedure to be followed, which procedure is designed to test the fitness of a person so to be appointed; her character, her integrity, her competence, her knowledge and the like. [Para 3] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - the Supreme Court refused to accept the interpretation that a person who may have been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice in the Supreme Court is ineligible to be appointed as High Court judges - because at the end of the day every lawyer is enrolled with the Bar Council of a particular State. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2)(a) - Supreme Court rejects the petition filed by nine judicial officers from Andhra Pradesh for consideration for elevation as HC judges- Court holds that their service as ad-hoc judges cannot be reckoned for the purposes of Article 217(2)(a). (Para 8) C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : AIR 2023 SC 1214

    Article 222 - Transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 222 - Supreme Court critices the Centre for delay in notifying transfer of High Court judges as per collegium recommendations- Delay in the same not only affects the administration of justice but creates an impression as if there are third party sources interfering on behalf of these Judges with the Government. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 222 - Transferred judges do not carry label of 'bar judge' or 'service judge' - If a Judge is transferred from a Court, it is not as if a replacement can be provided from the Bar or the Service Judges of that Court as the total strength of the Court is specified. When the Judge is transferred to another Court, he is a transferred Judge neither categorized from the Bar nor from the Service. In the Court where he is transferred, he occupies a physical position in the strength of that Court and unless correspondingly Judges are transferred from that Court, there will be lesser person appointed in that Court from the Bar/Services as the total strength of the Court to which transfer is made cannot be exceeded. The transferred Judge does not carry the label of a Bar or a Service Judge and it is up to the Chief Justice where to he is transferred to reduce the inflow in the Court of transfer, i.e., from the Bar or Service. Similarly, if from the Court where to Judges are transferred, in turn Judges from either category are transferred to other Courts they in turn will carry the label of a transferred Judge and not from the Bar or the Service. This aspect has been clarified as there 5 appears to be some doubts expressed about how the system of transfer will operate. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

    Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

    Article 226 - The High Court ought to relegate parties to alternate remedies when there are serious factual disputes. State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

    Article 226(2) - Supreme Court explains tests to determine if cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of the High Court. State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Quo warranto is a remedy or procedure whereby the State inquires into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to an office or franchise, and to oust him from its enjoyment if the claim be not well founded, or to have the same declared forfeited and recover it, if, having once been rightfully possessed and enjoyed; it has become forfeited for mis-user or non-user. (Para 30) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 – Writ of Quo warranto - The question of fulfilling legal requirements and qualifications necessary to hold a public office would be considered in the proceedings independent of the fact as to who made the appointment and the manner in which the appointment was made. (Para 31) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 – Writ of Quo warranto - Any person may challenge the validity of an appointment of a public office, whether any fundamental or other legal right of his has been infringed or not. But the court must be satisfied that the person so applying is bona fide and there is a necessity in public interest to declare judicially that there is a usurpation of public office. If the application is not bona fide and the applicant is a mere pawn or a man of straw in the hands of others, he cannot claim the remedy. Though the applicant may not be an aspirant for the office nor has any interest in appointment, he can apply as a private relator, or an ordinary citizen. (Para 32) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 – Writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law. (Para 39) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/ affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion. (Para 28) State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - No doubt, in a writ proceeding between the State and a landholder, the Court can, on the basis of materials/evidence(s) placed on record, determine whether possession has been taken or not and while doing so, it may draw adverse inference against the State where the statutory mode of taking possession has not been followed. However, where possession is stated to have been taken long ago and there is undue delay on the part of landholder in approaching the writ court, infraction of the prescribed procedure for taking possession would not be a determining factor, inasmuch as, it could be taken that the person for whose benefit the procedure existed had waived his right thereunder. In such an event, the factum of actual possession would have to be determined on the basis of materials/evidence(s) available on record and not merely by finding fault in the procedure adopted for taking possession from the land holder. And if the writ court finds it difficult to determine such question, either for insufficient/ inconclusive materials/evidence(s) on record or because oral evidence would also be required to form a definite opinion, it may relegate the writ petitioner to a suit, if the suit is otherwise maintainable. (Para 30) State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The factum of possession is essentially a question of fact. Although there is no hard and fast rule that a question of fact cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction but, in the event of a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact, a writ court ordinarily refrains from deciding it. More so, when writ petitioner has an alternative remedy where such disputed questions of fact can be decided authoritatively. (Para 23) State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The whole object of preferring a Writ Petition is to engage with the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional power. Such a power is vested with the constitutional courts and discretion has to be exercised judiciously and having regard to the facts of the case and by taking into consideration the relevant facts while leaving out irrelevant considerations and not vice versa. (Para 19) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petition in tender matters - The owner or the employer of a project, who authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents - The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation. (Para 25) Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse - The introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 26-30) Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Appeal against order of National Commission - the petitioner to first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of course, after the High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of the parties to thereafter come before the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 38) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - the High Court, even while deciding a bail application, has the power to issue other directions in the interest of justice. Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The observations are not to be construed to imply that the High Courts should delve into the efficacy of investigation at the stage of bail, and the present judgment is not to be misread to haul up the investigative agencies/officers in all cases. (Para 15) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 and 227 - The High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers. The powers are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice. (Para 12) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Supreme Court deprecates High Court entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters, especially against private banks - When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper - Mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition “not maintainable" - Where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. (Para 4-8) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 : AIR 2023 SC 781

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - It was premature for the High Court to opine anything on whether there was any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be considered in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under section 130 of the CGST Act was issued. Therefore, High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice and quashing and setting aside the same. State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction can be exercised when the State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practices any discrimination. (Para 19) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of money under the bills/invoices should not have been entertained by the High Court, more particularly, when in fact the original writ petitioner(s) availed the remedy before Civil Court and filed Civil Suit, which came to be dismissed in default. Director of Agriculture v. M.V. Ramachandran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 220

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging orders of Armed Forces Tribunal are maintainable - To deny the High Court to correct any error which the Armed Forces Tribunal may fall into, even in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, would be against the constitutional scheme. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Concept of forum conveniens - Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court, the same by itself could not have been a determinative factor compelling the High Court to keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant to decide the matter qua the impugned notification, on merit. (Para 18) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Guiding tests to determine whether part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court- In the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such 'cause of action' is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed- Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action - In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant- It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction- Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted- Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. (Para 15) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a challenge to an order passed by a Tribunal situated outside its jurisdiction - Supreme Court refers to larger bench. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : (2023) 5 SCC 706 : (2023) 2 SCR 59

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Tax has been levied by the Government of Goa in respect of a business that the petitioning company is carrying on within the territory of Goa - Such tax is payable by the petitioning company not in respect of carrying on of any business in the territory of Sikkim- Merely because the petitioning company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, the same by itself does not form an integral part of the cause of action authorizing the petitioning company to move the High Court. (Para 16) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247

    Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - In view of alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal before the DRAT, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226/227 allowing the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 6) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : AIR 2023 SC 306 : (2023) 1 SCR 579

    Article 239A - Creation of local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union territories

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament is empowered by law to create a body of legislature for the Union territories of Puducherry and J&K.- Even if the law made by Parliament creating a body of legislature for Union territories of Puducherry and J&K has the effect of amending certain parts of the Constitution, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

    Article 239AA - Special provisions with respect to Delhi

    Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - Can parliamentary law under Article 239AA(7) alter constitutional powers of Delhi govt? issue referred to the Supreme Court constitution bench. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551

    Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - If a democratically elected government is not given the power to control the officers, the principle of triple chain of accountability will be redundant. If the officers stop reporting to the Ministers or do not abide by their directions, the principle of collective responsibility is affected. If "services" are excluded from legislative and executive domain, the Ministers would be excluded from controlling the civil servants who are to implement the executive decisions. if the officers feel they are insulated from the control of the government, it will dilute accountability and affect governance. Thus, in a democratic form of govt, real power of administration must rest on the elected arm of the government. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

    Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - Legislative structure of Article 239AA excludes Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II to Schedule VII (public order, police and land) from the power of the Delhi legislative assembly. The Union of India has executive power only over these three entries.Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

    Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - the legislative assembly of Delhi embodies the principle of representative democracy, the Delhi assembly is given powers to legislate to represent the will of the people. Thus, Article 239AA of the Constitution must be interpreted in a manner to further the interest of representative democracy. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

    Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services in the National Capital, excluding matters relating to public order, police and land. The Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decision of Delhi government over services, apart from public order, police and land. If services are excluded from its legislative and executive domain, the Ministers and the Executive who are charged with formulating policies in the territory of NCTD would be excluded from controlling the civil service officers who implement such executive decisions. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

    Article 243R - Composition of Municipalities

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 243R - The Constitution has imposed a restriction in terms of which nominated members who are brought in on account of their special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration do not have the right to vote- The same restriction finds statutory recognition in Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The above provisions indicate that persons who are nominated under the sub-clause shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Corporation. The Constitution and the Act place value on their experience but the right to vote is not granted to them at meetings of the Corporation. (Para 11) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : (2023) 5 SCC 414

    Article 254 - Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - The Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 cannot be invalidated on the ground that is provisions are at variance from the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Since the Tamil Nadu Act has received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, there is no basis in challenging the Act on the ground that is repugnant to the RFCTLARR Act. Though the State Act did not provide fixed timelines for acquiring land as compared to the new Land Acquisition Act (a central Legislature), the same would not vitiate the State Act. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State Act stood protected after receiving the Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The whole purpose of Article 254(2) was to protect a State enactment when it ran contrary to central legislation. Individual cases involving delay in the acquisition of land under the Highways Act would have to be dealt on merits and that itself would not invalidate the Act. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States - the doctrine of repugnancy as such would not apply within the meaning of Article 254 of the Constitution. Although Entry 25 of List III gives powers to both the central and state legislatures to pass laws on the subject of education, it is significant to note that any such law made by the state legislature is subject to, inter alia, Entry 66 of List I. Hence, where there is a direct conflict between a state law and a union law over a matter of the coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education, such as in medical education concerning modern medicine, the state law cannot have any validity as the state legislature does not possess legislative competence. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

    Article 299 - Contracts

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 299 - No immunity from statute merely because a contract is entered in the President's name. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 299 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 11(6) and 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - Application for appointment of arbitrator - A contract entered into in the name of the President of India, does not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777

    Article 300A - Suits and proceedings

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Assuming holding notes is a right under the Constitution, the rights vested in the notes was not taken away - only restrictions were with respect to exchange of old notes with the new notes. [Para 277 - 278] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - To continue with the temporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be 9 infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Even to continue with the temporary acquisition for a longer period can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of the landowners to deal with and/or use the land. (Para 7) Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 - Rehabilitation scheme under Section 18 of the SICA, 1985 shall bind all the creditors including the unsecured creditors - Dues cannot be recovered post revival of sick company - Compelling unsecured creditors to accept the scaled down value of their dues would not be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the rehabilitation scheme is prepared under Section 18 of SICA, which has a binding effect on all the creditors. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208

    Article 309 - Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State, is one of a status. It is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued under Article 309 or its proviso. (Para 21) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042

    Article 311 - Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State

    Constitution of India, 1905; Article 311 (2) (c) Second Proviso - Inquiry proceedings of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union Government or the State Government can be done away with if the President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry. Once it is obvious that circumstances based on materials capable of arriving at a satisfaction that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry “in the interest of the security of the State” are available, the decision in holding that it is inexpedient “in the interest of the security of the State” to hold an inquiry warrants no further scrutiny. The Court cannot, in such circumstances, judge on the expedience or inexpediency to dispense with the inquiry as it was arrived at based on the subjective satisfaction of the President based on materials. (Para 24) Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 432 : AIR 2023 SC 2391

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311 - Departmental enquiry not necessary to terminate the services of a judicial officer on the ground of suppression of criminal case at the time of making application- It is not a case of termination of services for misconduct - It was the case of cancellation of the appointment on not disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7) Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142

    Article 323A – Administrative tribunals

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 323A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs. (Para 32) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

    Article 324 - Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 324 (2) - Appointment to the posts of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be done by the President of India on the basis of the advice tendered by a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and, in case, there is no such Leader, the Leader of the largest Party in the Opposition in the Lok Sabha having the largest numerical strength, and the Chief Justice of India. This norm will continue to hold good till a law is made by the Parliament - As regards the relief relating to putting in place a permanent Secretariat for the Election Commission of India and charging its expenditure to the Consolidated Fund of India is concerned, the Court makes a fervent appeal that the Union of India/Parliament may consider bringing in the necessary changes so that the Election Commission of India becomes truly independent. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : (2023) 6 SCC 161

    Article 330 - Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 330 and 332 - Delimitation Act, 2002 - As regards providing reservation for all the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative constituencies in a Scheduled Area, the appellant cannot contend that all the constituencies in a Scheduled area should be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Reservation is required to be made in terms of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. These provisions do not provide that all the constituencies in the Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Moreover, the 2002 Act is applicable to the Scheduled Area. Therefore, even the said prayer to issue a writ of mandamus, as regards the reservation for the Scheduled Tribes, deserves to be rejected. (Para 17) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

    Article 370 - Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 a temporary Provision: Supreme Court upholds abrogation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Won't touch special provisions for North Eastern States or other parts, Centre Tells Supreme Court. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Constitution amendments through circuitous manner not permissible; Article 368 procedure must be followed. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Why Supreme Court upheld repeal of J&K special status despite invalidating changes to Article 367 ? Explained. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Union Government has absolutely no intent to affect any of the special provisions in Part XXI applicable to the North East or to any other part of India. The reference to the Constitution Bench is confined to the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 4, 5) In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation - There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K undertaken by the Delimitation Commission - there is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020 - There is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed - findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. We are aware that the issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending - Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving our imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 31 - 46) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

    Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule

    Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - All the Central and the State laws which are applicable to the entire State will continue to apply to the Scheduled Area unless, in exercise of powers under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, there is a specific notification issued by the Hon'ble Governor making a particular enactment inapplicable, either fully or partially. (Para 13 (i)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

    Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - The power of the Hon'ble Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule is restricted to directing that a particular law will not apply to the Scheduled Area or it will apply with such modifications as may be specified in the notification issued under subclause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule or while making Regulations in terms of sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule. (Para 13 (ii)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

    Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - The power of the Hon'ble Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule does not supersede the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Fundamental Rights conferred by sub-clause (e) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India on the citizens can also be exercised in relation to the Scheduled Area. (Para 13 (ii) & (iii)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

    Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule

    Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule - The power on the Parliament as also the State Legislatures to make laws relating to mechanically propelled vehicles of all kinds and also to lay down the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied -The central enactment i.e. the law made by the Parliament has not laid down any principles for levy of taxes. The State Legislatures has the power to levy taxes not only under Entries 56 and 57 of List II but also to lay down the principles under Entry 35 of List III. (Para 46) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 27 : AIR 2023 SC 390

    Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule

    Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - deals with currency, coinage and legal tender; foreign exchange which is a field of legislation - Central Government has the power to initiate the process of demonetisation on the strength of Entry 36 - apart from financial health of the country Central Government is also concerned about the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country - if it thinks fit to initiate a proposal for demonetisation to eradicate black money, fake currency, terror funding etc, it should be able to do so. [Para 15.7, 15.8 and 15.9] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

    Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - power of Central Government to demonetise banknotes - Central Government has the power to demonetise 'all' series of bank notes of 'all' denominations, even without the recommendation of Central Board; but not in exercise of Section 26(2) - such an extensive power is to be exercised only through a legislative process [legislation/Ordinance (if urgent)] and not by way of an executive act - the Parliament should be involved in the process of implementation of such a scheme of demonetisation. [Para 15.13, 15.4 and 15.22] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

    Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule

    Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 49 of List II – Fees on erection of mobile tower – Held, the State Government has the authority to impose permit fees on the erection of mobile towers. The tax or fee applicable is on the use of the land and building where the mobile tower is installed, not on the tower itself. (Para 13) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd; v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 849

    Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule

    Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 66 of List I - It is essential that uniform standards are laid down by the Parliament which are adhered to by institutions and medical colleges across the country. To this end, Entry 66 has been formulated with the objective of maintaining uniform standards in research, higher education, and technical education. Hence, state legislatures lack legislative competence in the areas of prescription of minimum standards for medical education, authority to recognise or derecognise an institution, etc. The particular qualifications for medical practitioners practising in disparate areas and in disparate fields, providing different levels of primary, secondary, or tertiary medical services, are within the mandate of expert and statutory authorities entrusted with the said mandate by the Parliament. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

    Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule

    Constitution of India, 1950; Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - Unless a notification has been issued by the Governor indicating that (I) a parliamentary or state law shall have no application to the Scheduled Area; or (ii) the parliamentary or state legislation would apply subject to exceptions or modifications, there would be no hindrance in the application of the law to the State. (Para 13) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 851

    Part 1: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-I]

    Part 2: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-II]

    Part 3: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-III]

    Part 4: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-IV]

    Part 5: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-V]

    Tags
    The Constitutional Law of IndiaSupreme Court Digests#DigestsAnnual Digest 2023Supreme Court Yearly Digest#Yearly digestIndian ConstitutionCompany Law
    Next Story
    X
    sidekick
    x
    IP subscription is detected for  
    Please register yourself for unlimited free access.
    Redirecting to register page...