Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2022 (Jan - Jun) Constitution of India

Arbitration - Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 (Kerala) - The Act is liable to be held unconstitutional on the ground of encroachment upon the judicial powers of the State - The Act has the effect of annulling the awards which have become "Rules of Court", is a transgression on the judicial functions of the State and therefore, violative of doctrine of "separation of powers". (Para 122, 127(iii)) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Bail - No accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 40) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : AIR 2022 SC 1918

CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

Constitution (102^nd Amendment) Act, 2018 - What the 102nd Amendment prohibits the State from undertaking is identifying a caste as SEBC or including or excluding a community from the list notified by the President - Determining the extent of reservation for a community amongst the list of Most Backward Classes does not amount to identification. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 - The 105th Amendment Act cannot be said to be a validating amendment- Prospective in operation - Identifying certain communities which are to be deemed as SEBCs for the purposes of the Central Government and the States, respectively, cannot be said to be a matter of procedure. The procedural aspect of the 102nd Amendment Act and the 105th Amendment Act is only the manner of publication of the lists of SEBCs, whereas the substantive element of the said amendments is identifying and recognising certain communities as SEBCs. (Para 29) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 - The scheme of the Constitutional Amendment is not to take away legislative competence of the State Legislatures to legislate on the subject of local Government but it is more to ensure that the three tiers of governance are strengthened as part of democratic set up. (Para 8) State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Constitution of India, 1950 - After a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed with NOIDA, the petitioner made a representation to it requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed - High Court directed NOIDA to consider the representation - NOIDA rejected it - This was again challenged before High Court by the Petitioner - High Court dismissed writ petition - SLP challenging the said High Court judgment dismissed. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : 2022 (4) SCALE 280

Constitution of India, 1950 - Appeal against High Court order that set aside order issued by Municipality cancelling work order to appellant - Allowed - In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order. Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : 2022 (4) SCALE 262

Constitution of India, 1950 - Judicial Interference in policy matters - APM Terminals B.V. v. Union of India and anr. - consistent view of the Court - a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest - provide such change in policy was guided by reason - in case of conflict between public interest and personal interest, public interest should prevail - when a policy is changed by the State, which is in the general public interest, such policy would prevail over the individual rights/interests - in the present case, the policy change was not only in the larger public interest but also in the interest of the respondents/original allottees of plots of land [Para 61 - 63 & 65] Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 536 : 2022 (8) SCALE 470

Constitution of India, 1950 - Levy of Excise Duty - Appeal against High Court order which set aside demand notice issued to pay excise duty on the weak spirit, which was more than 2% allowable wastage - Dismissed - Wastage generated has been found to be unfit and unsafe for potable purpose - the State has power to levy excise duty only in respect of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240 : (2022) 5 SCC 326

Constitution of India, 1950 - Levy of Excise Duty - State Legislature has no authority to levy duty or tax on alcohol, which is not for human consumption as that could be levied only by the Centre - State only empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor for human consumption. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240 : (2022) 5 SCC 326

Constitution of India, 1950 - Manipur Assembly passed the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018 - The Manipur Legislature was competent to enact the Repealing Act, 2018. The saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 is struck down. However, this shall not affect the acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries under the 2012 Act till discontinuation of their appointments, which are hereby saved. (Para 26) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950 - Permissibility of sub-classification amongst backw ard classes as has been done in the 2021 Act cannot be contested. Reasonableness of sub-classification is a separate question. (Para 33) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950 - Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh) - Appeal against High Court order refusing to interfere with confiscation order passed by District Magistrate despite acquittal in connected criminal case under MP Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act - Allowed - The order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the appellant's truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A - The District Magistrate's order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243 : 2022 (4) SCALE 401

Constitution of India, 1950 - Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021 declared unconstitutional - Upheld the Madras High Court judgment holding that there is no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs, and therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16. (Para 74) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950 - The conclusion of the High Court that determining the extent of reservation amongst the 'Backward Classes of citizens' can be done only by amending the 1994 Act in view of Article 31-B is unsustainable - State Legislature did not lack competence to enact a legislation for determining the extent of reservation amongst the MBCs and DNCs. (Para 46) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court has committed an error in holding that the 2021 Act is violative of Article 342-A. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950 - The State's competence to enact the 2021 Act with the Governor's assent cannot be faulted with nor can the State be compelled by the courts to reserve the 2021 Act for assent of the President. (Para 51) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950 - There is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act. (Para 71) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ Petition Challenging Bihar Government notification approving issuance of caste certificate to Lohar community - Allowed - Lohars were not included as members of the Scheduled Tribe right from the beginning and they were, in fact, included as members of the OBCs in the State of Bihar - Lohar is not same as Lohara. Including Lohars alongside 'Lohara' is clearly illegal and arbitrary - State to pay costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioners. Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - State - The determination of a body as a 'State' is not a rigid set of principles. What is to be seen is whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, albeit if the control is mere regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it will not serve to make the body a State. Also, the presence of some element of public duty or function would not by itself suffice for bringing a body within the net of Article 12. (Para 6) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - State - Whether Automotive Research Association of India Is A State -The majority of the members of the Association are associated with the manufacturers of the automobiles or their components and are not in service of the government. They are private players and from the motor vehicle industry - The main objective and function of the association relate to motor vehicles which is not directly or indirectly a field connected with functions of the government - One function assigned to the Association, which is not the primary and forms a small fraction of their activities and functions performed by the Association, would not matter. An overall and holistic view of the functions and activities, including the primary function(s), should be taken into consideration - Association is not an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Further, the Government does not have deep and pervasive control over it. (Para 18 - 24) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - While exercising its functions on the administrative side, the High Court would also be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (Para 39) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Appeal filed by power distribution companies assailing the order of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi which had directed the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to dispose of two applications filed by the parties before it. Displeased with the conduct of the appellants in the dispute the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lakhs) on them. Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117 : (2022) 5 SCC 484

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Classification Test - When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one - When the differentiation is clearly distinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets satisfied. Social, revenue and economic considerations are certainly permissible parameters in classifying a particular group - Courts could not act like appellate authorities especially when a classification is introduced by way of a policy decision clearly identifying the group of beneficiaries by analysing the relevant materials - When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided. (Para 14-18) State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354 : AIR 2022 SC 1767

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Every action of a State is required to be guided by the touchstone of non­arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. Every action of a State is equally required to be guided by public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose highest duty is to the people of the country. The Public Authority is therefore required to exercise the powers only for the public good. (Para 100) Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117 : (2022) 5 SCC 484

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Inter­play between the plea of legitimate expectation and Article 14 - For a decision to be non ­arbitrary, the reasonable/legitimate expectations of the claimant have to be considered. However, to decide whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context, is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. (Para 14)] State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Non-consideration of the relevant material and consideration of the extraneous material would come into the realm of irrationality. An action which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 66) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Policy Decision - The policy of the State of Rajasthan is that while selecting Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks are to be given to such employees who have done similar work under the State Government and under the various schemes - Whether such bonus marks would also be available to the contractual employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States - The policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Para 22) Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2022) 5 SCC 314

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Right to equality - The right against unfair State action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The differential treatment for different classes would not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The only requirement would be, as to whether such a classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. (Para 31) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366 : AIR 2022 SC 1799 : (2022) 6 SCC 65

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - There is a presumption of validity of the State action and the burden is on the person who alleges violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to prove the assertion - Where no plausible reason or principle is indicated nor is it discernible and the impugned State action appears to be arbitrary, the initial burden to prove the arbitrariness is discharged, thereby shifting onus on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable. If the State is unable to produce material to justify its action as fair and reasonable, the burden on the person alleging arbitrariness must be held to be discharged. (Para 55) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - There is no negative equality - If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. (Para 24) R. Muthukumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 140 : 2022 (3) SCALE 241

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - Service Law - An amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 47) Punjab State Co. Agri. Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 42 : AIR 2022 SC 1349 : (2022) 4 SCC 363

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial. (Para 71-72) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - While caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the State Government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. (Para 54) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14-16 - Substantial Equality - Discrimination both direct and indirect is contrary to the vision of substantive equality -The true aim of achieving substantive equality must be fulfilled by the State in recognizing the persistent patterns of discrimination against women once they are in the work place. (Para 46-48) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15(1), 341 and 342 - Furthermore, the duty to provide clarity and protection, generally speaking has to be consistent - i.e., in the case of one states' reorganization, the protection should not be greater than in the case of reorganization of another state. That would defeat the command of Articles 14 and 15 (1) (i.e., in the latter case, there can possibly be discrimination on the ground of place of birth). In my opinion, this duty stems from a co-joint reading of Part I (Articles 1 to 4), Articles 14, 15(1), 341, and 342 of the Constitution, and the overarching concern that the individual should not be worse off, due to disruption not of her or his making. The duty of Parliament in such cases, is a Constitutional obligation, to ensure that no one individual or group is disadvantaged. (Justice Bhat, Para 10) Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 - Articles 15(4) and 15 (5) are not an exception to Article 15 (1), which itself sets out the principle of substantive equality (including the recognition of existing inequalities). Thus, Articles 15 (4) and 15 (5) become a restatement of a particular facet of the rule of substantive equality that has been set out in Article 15 (1). (Para 59(i)) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73 : (2022) 4 SCC 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 - Practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism - Such attitudes have no place in our society; recent developments have highlighted areas hitherto considered exclusive male "bastions" such as employment in the armed forces, are no longer so. (Para 48) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : 2022 (3) SCALE 663

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licenced bars is void - This restriction directly transgresses Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - the latter provision both in its effect to the performers as well as the license owners. While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination. (Para 47, 49) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : 2022 (3) SCALE 663

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender-cap (i.e. four females and four males, in any performance) appears to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments, belong to a certain class of society Such measures – which claim protection, in reality are destructive of Article 15 (3) as they masquerade as special provisions and operate to limit or exclude altogether women's choice of their avocation. (Para 42, 46) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : 2022 (3) SCALE 663

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277 : 2022 (2) SCALE 357

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Appeal against High Court judgment which held that though the LARGESS Scheme was terminated, since the respondent's father superannuated on 1 January 2015 prior to 27 January 2017, the benefit of the scheme could be extended to him in terms of the notification dated 28 September 2018- Allowed - The impugned judgment issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277 : 2022 (2) SCALE 357

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - No yardstick can be laid down by the Court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation. (Para 16) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - The judgment of M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 should be declared to have prospective effect- Making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time. (Para 42) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or 'class'/'group' but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service. (Para 29) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors. (Para 30) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - We are not inclined to express any view on discontinuation of reservations in totality, which is completely within the domain of the legislature and the executive. As regards review, we are of the opinion that data collected to determine inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically. The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out. (Para 31) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - The conclusion in B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India (2019) 16 SCC 129 approving the collection of data on the basis of 'groups' and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors.(2018) 10 SCC 396 – The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into account the data pertaining to a 'group', which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not group-wise. Sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate for collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a 'group', is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. (Para 47) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - Compassionate Appointment Policy - Descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under the scheme of compassionate appointments - A policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant. (Para 9, 10) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 : 2022 (4) SCALE 103

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - Descent - 'Descent' must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant's legitimacy as their child. (Para 9) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 : 2022 (4) SCALE 103

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16 - Compassionate Appointment - The condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee - Rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would violate Article 14 if the policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment. The circular creates two categories between one class, and it has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. Once the law has deemed them legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered under the policy. Exclusion of one class of legitimate children would fail to meet the test of nexus with the object, and it would defeat the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the family of the deceased employee. (Para 2,7) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 : 2022 (4) SCALE 103

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(g) - Right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration. (Para 40-41) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366 : AIR 2022 SC 1799 : (2022) 6 SCC 65

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 300 - Principle of Double Jeopardy - The accused-respondent No. 2 having gone through the trial in relation to offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and having been acquitted, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts. Any such process would be in blatant disregard of the settled principles which disapprove double jeopardy and are precisely contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as also Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ms. P XXX v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : AIR 2022 SC 2885

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated - Persons who are keen to not be vaccinated on account of personal beliefs or preferences, can avoid vaccination, without anyone physically compelling them to be vaccinated. However, if there is a likelihood of such individuals spreading the infection to other people or contributing to mutation of the virus or burdening of the public health infrastructure, thereby affecting communitarian health at large, protection of which is undoubtedly a legitimate State aim of paramount significance in this collective battle against the pandemic, the Government can regulate such public health concerns by imposing certain limitations on individual rights that are reasonable and proportionate to the object sought to be fulfilled. (Para 49, 89(iii) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439 : 2022 (7) SCALE 256

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - By following the procedure established by law, the personal liberty of the citizens can be dealt with. (Para 8) Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260 : AIR 2022 SC 1406

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21- Fair Trial - An accused is entitled for a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 13) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60 : AIR 2022 SC 527

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Personal autonomy of an individual involves the right of an individual to determine how they should live their own life, which consequently encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health. (Para 49, 89(iii)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439 : 2022 (7) SCALE 256

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Preservation of family life is an incident of Article 21. (Para 51) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Rights of Sex Workers - Basic Protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children - Directions issued to States/UTs for conditions conducive to sex workers to live with dignity in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Police should not abuse them physically or verbally - Press Council of India to issue guidelines to media to protect their anonymity during raid and rescue operations - Various other directions issued. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The dignity of person, which is an intrinsic element of Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be left to the vagaries of insensitive procedures and a hostile environment. Access to justice mandates that positive steps have to be adopted to create a barrier free environment. These barriers are not only those which exist within the physical spaces of conventional courts but those which operate on the minds and personality of vulnerable witnesses. (Para 3) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Without health, the faculties of living have little meaning. (Para 5) Baiju K.G. v. Dr. V.P. Joy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517 : 2022 (8) SCALE 275

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The sweep of Article 21 is expansive enough to govern the action of dismembering a member from the House of the Legislative Assembly in the form of expulsion or be it a case of suspension by directing withdrawal from the meeting of the Assembly for the remainder of the Session. (Para 49) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2022 SC 721

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high. (Para 21) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : 2022 (6) SCALE 164

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21- Fair Trial - It must be emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 27) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 32, 226 - Infringement of Article 21 may be an individual case such as by the State or its functionaries; or by the Organizers and the State; or by the Organizers themselves have been subject matter of consideration before this Court in a writ petition under Article 32 or before the High Court under Article 226. (Para 22) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : 2022 (6) SCALE 164

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 39A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 304 - Right to a fair trial - Right to fair and speedy trial applies as much to the victim as the accused - While expediting the trial, it is imperative on the Court to see that the due procedure is followed during the course of trial. (Para 33) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390 : AIR 2022 SC 1967

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - No accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 40) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : AIR 2022 SC 1918

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 - Preventive Detention - the powers to be exercised under this law are exceptional powers which have been given to the government for its exercise in an exceptional situation -A law and order situation can be dealt with under the ordinary law of land. (Para 12 & 13) Shaik Nazneen v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - No express prohibition stems from Article 31-B on the powers of the State Legislature to legislate on matters incidental to statutes placed within the Ninth Schedule - State has the power to amend or repeal a statute which has been placed under the Ninth Schedule - Any amendment made to a statute placed under the Ninth Schedule does not get protection under Article 31-B, unless the said amendment is also included in the Ninth Schedule. (Para 44) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 - Placing of the 1994 Act under the Ninth Schedule cannot operate as a hurdle for the State to enact legislations on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act. Legislative competence of the State Legislature can only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and Article 31-B does not stipulate any such express prohibition on the legislative powers of the State. (Para 75) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Bail - Writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate granting bail - Judge granting bail and Addl. District Judge who refused to interfere with said order impleaded by name - Conduct of the petitioner deprecated - No reason why the petitioner should have filed this writ petition directly in this court. Balakram @ Bhura v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for the relief(s) prayed to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings/FIR ought not to have been filed - It is not expected that the relief which can be considered by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be considered in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Delay by itself cannot be used as a weapon to Veto an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - In a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self -restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a person complaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Court. This is subject to the power of the Court to relegate the party to other proceedings. (Para 7) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge - A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - The court has power of grant of compensation in the case of violation of Fundamental Rights. (Para 29) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 and 226 - Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review of a decision of the Full Court of a High Court is extremely narrow and we cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of the Full Court of a High Court. (Para 29) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 and 226 - Judicial Review - The principle of fairness has an important place in the law of judicial review and that unfairness in the purported exercise of power can be such that it is abuse or excess of power. The court should interfere where discretionary power is not exercised reasonably and in good faith. (Para 40) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Appeal against High Court Judgment allowing PIL in the matter of a title claim between a private party and the State - Allowed - The State clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants - Institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Remission - The Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision is arbitrary in nature. The Court is empowered to direct the government to reconsider its decision. (Para 14) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401 : AIR 2022 SC 2017

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - In judicial review proceedings, the Courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. (Para 8.4) Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 64 : (2022) 3 SCC 203

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - The dialogic process of judicial review can provide effective solutions which provide acceptable outcomes which promote harmony. (Para 9) Surat Parsi Panchayat Board v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 149 : (2022) 4 SCC 534

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Policy Matters - Court in the exercise of judicial review cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy. Yet, the legitimacy of a policy can be assessed on the touchstone of constitutional parameters. Moreover, short of testing the validity of a policy on constitutional parameters, judicial review can certainly extend to requiring the State to take into consideration constitutional values when it frames policies. The State, consistent with the mandate of Part III of the Constitution, must take into consideration constitutional values while designing its policy in a manner which enforces and implement those values. (Para 43) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review in Policy Matters - Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy. Further, an increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue. This is not to say that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy. (Para 46) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289 : 2022 (5) SCALE 52

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial review of executive decisions based on expert opinion - Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. (Para 21) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439 : 2022 (7) SCALE 256

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Policy decisions - Court would be slow in interfering with matters of policy, especially those connected to public health. There is also no doubt that wide latitude is given to executive opinion which is based on expert advice. However, it does not mean that this Court will not look into cases where violation of fundamental rights is involved and the decision of the executive is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 25) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439 : 2022 (7) SCALE 256

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - One of the measures to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court. (Para 22) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general - Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts - Many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. (Para 21) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi -One of the measures to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court. (Para 22) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general - Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts - Many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. (Para 21) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Appeal against High Court Judgment allowing PIL in the matter of a title claim between a private party and the State - Allowed - The State clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants - Institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Reservation - No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation - Even no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation- Even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation. (Para 8) State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84 : AIR 2022 SC 918 : (2022) 3 SCC 633

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Supreme Court allowed writ petition filed by a convict whose application for remission was rejected - Special Judge, Durg directed to provide an opinion on the application for remission afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning. Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401 : AIR 2022 SC 2017

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Mandamus will not be issued to command Legislature to enact a law, which it is competent to enact - It cannot even issue a Mandamus to the Government for enforcement of a Cabinet decision - When an administrative order confers rights or creates estoppel against the Government, that Mandamus can be issued to enforce the circular. Similarly a Mandamus may be issued to cancel an administrative order, which violates the rules of fairness. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Writ Of Quo Warranto - The jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued when a person is holding the public office does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (Para 9, 9.1) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 and 14 - Judicial Review - Arbitrariness - The limited scope of judicial review is only to satisfy that the State action is not vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness and no more - It is not for the courts to recast the policy or to substitute it with another which is considered to be more appropriate - The attack on the ground of arbitrariness is successfully repelled by showing that the act which was done, was fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 55) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 and 14 - Policy matters - Policy matters are never interfered with, unless patently arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Unless the Court is satisfied that the decision which has been taken by the authorities is without application of mind to relevant circumstances or was manifestly arbitrary, there would be no reason for the Court to interfere. (Para 13) Dr. R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : AIR 2022 SC 2306

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226 and 227 - The power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32 are part of the basic structure of our constitution and the same is inviolable. (Para 12) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : AIR 2022 SC 2713

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 72 and 161 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432, 433 and 433A - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 45 and 53 - There can be imposition of life imprisonment without any remission till the last breath as a substitution of death sentence. (Para 3) Ravindra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 73, 162 - A policy decision taken in terms of the power conferred under Article 73 of the Constitution on the Union and Article 162 on the States is subservient to the recruitment rules that have been framed under a legislative enactment or the rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. (Para 29) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - An order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272 : AIR 2022 SC 1524

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Appeal By Special Leave is not a regular appeal - The Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is the scope of these appeals that this Court would enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by the Trial Court and approved by the High Court. (Para 20) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144 : 2022 (3) SCALE 45

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Appeal by Special Leave - In an appeal by special leave, where the Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently returned the findings of fact after appreciation of evidence, each and every finding of fact cannot be contested nor such an appeal could be dealt with as if another forum for reappreciation of evidence - If the assessment by the Trial Court and the High Court could be said to be vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or in disregard to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice, the Court may, and in appropriate cases would, interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice but, such a course is adopted only in rare and exceptional cases of manifest illegality. (Para 20) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144 : 2022 (3) SCALE 45

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Bail - The application filed by the petitioner having been dismissed as not pressed, the question of interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot and does not arise. Santo Devi v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 133

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by the Supreme Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court - Summarized. (Para 30) Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33 : (2022) 3 SCC 471

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - When an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of Section 438 CrPC. What has been observed and said in relation to Section 438 CrPC applies with more vigour to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 21) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2022 (8) SCALE 713

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Principles governing interference in a criminal appeal by special leave. (Para 7) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60 : AIR 2022 SC 527

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition against a review order alone is not maintainable. (Para 3) R.K. Singh vs General Manager, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 119

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - A mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition would not mean that the view of the High Court has been approved by this Court. (Para 37) State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393 : AIR 2022 SC 2030

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Supreme Court exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution may not refuse to interfere in a case where three Courts have gone completely wrong. The jurisdiction generated in an appeal under Article 136 is undoubtedly rare and extraordinary. Article 136 of the Constitution only confers a right to obtain special leave in rare and extraordinary cases. (Para 11) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275 : (2022) 6 SCC 735

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 136, 225 and 227 - Even when a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is provided by a statute against the decision of a tribunal, the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before the High Court remains unextinguished. (Para 24) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : AIR 2022 SC 2713

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 141 - Executive Decisions - When it comes to taking decisions which affect the rights of the citizens, it is the paramount duty of the Executive to enquire carefully about the implications of its decisions. At the very minimum, it must equip itself with the law which is laid down by the Courts and find out whether the decision will occasion a breach of law declared by the highest Court of the land - Respect for the decisions of the Courts holding the field are the very core of Rule of Law. Disregard or neglecting the position at law expounded by the Courts would spell doom for a country which is governed by the Rule of Law. (Para 22, 23) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Affirmed the judgment of the High Court but refused to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution the marriage declared as dissolved. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2022 (3) SCALE 275

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - In a catena of decisions of this Court, this power has been recognised and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Consent of the parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved. (Para 29-31) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2022 (3) SCALE 275

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Affirmed the judgment of the High Court but refused to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution the marriage declared as dissolved. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2022 (3) SCALE 275

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Relief can be moulded by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the declaration of a statute as unconstitutional. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - The issue whether a Judge sitting singly can pass an order granting decree of divorce to the parties on the basis of the Settlement Agreement in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India referred for adjudication by a larger Bench. (Para 2) Anamika Varun Rathore v. Varun Pratap Singh Rathore, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 145(3), 239AA(3)(a) and Entry 41 of List II of Seventh Schedule - interpretation of the phrases: "in so far as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories" and "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution" as contained in Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution - Referred for an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution. (Para 8-10) Govt of NCT Delhi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : 2022 (7) SCALE 507

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - Non-exercise of the power by Governor under Article 161 is not immune from judicial review -Given petitions under Article 161 pertain to the liberty of individuals, inexplicable delay not on account of the prisoners is inexcusable as it contributes to adverse physical conditions and mental distress faced by a prisoner, especially when the State Cabinet has taken a decision to release the prisoner by granting him the benefit of remission / commutation of his sentence. (Para 20) A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : AIR 2022 SC 2608

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters relating to commutation / remission of sentences under Article 161. (Para 19) A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : AIR 2022 SC 2608

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 194(3), 246 - Schedule VII List II Entry 39 and 40 - Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 - In Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam (2018) 14 SCC 408, it was declared that the Legislature of Assam lacked competence to enact it - Need no reconsideration - Entry 40 which relates to salaries and allowances of the Ministers of the State cannot be resorted to, for the purpose of justifying the legislative competence in enacting the Assam Act, 2004. (Para 14) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - "Person aggrieved" - Despite adequate opportunity, if a person has not lodged any objection at an appropriate stage and time, he could not be said to have been in fact, grieved. (Para 8.1) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182 : AIR 2022 SC 1220 : (2022) 5 SCC 710

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - An order of the Registrar directing the registration of a document is amenable to a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution - The mere existence of the remedy available before a civil court, under Section 9 of the CPC to avoid the document or to seek a declaration in regard to its invalidity, will not divest a person, who complains that the order passed by Registrar for the registration of the document was contrary to statutory provisions, of the remedy which is available in the exercise of a court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 30) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462 : 2022 (8) SCALE 189

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgments dismissing writ petitions reopening of the assessment/re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act - Allowed - Orders are bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents - Remanded. Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against high Court set aside the orders passed by authorities refusing to confirm auction in favour of highest bidder - Allowed - The High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over the decision of the competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the interference otherwise has to be very minimal. State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235 : AIR 2022 SC 1413 : (2022) 5 SCC 648

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which set aside the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent employee from service following a disciplinary enquiry on charges of bribery - Allowed - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employee - The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : (2022) 6 SCC 563

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Uttarakhand HC order which disposed a writ petition filed without deciding it on merits - Allowed and remanded - The order is bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2022 SC 1916

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Consumer Law - Transfer Petition filed seeking transfer of consumer complaints pending before Consumer fora to Bombay High Court - Dismissed - The consumer complaints are filed under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, such consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Yes bank v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 135

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of judicial review and interference of the courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality discussed. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392 : AIR 2022 SC 2008

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Habeas Corpus Petition - Custody Petition - The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration. The Courts, in such proceedings, cannot decide where the parents should reside as it will affect the right to privacy of the parents - A writ Court while dealing with the issue of habeas corpus cannot direct a parent to leave India and to go abroad with the child. If such orders are passed against the wishes of a parent, it will offend her/his right to privacy. A parent has to be given an option to go abroad with the child. It ultimately depends on the parent concerned to decide and opt for giving a company to the minor child for the sake of the welfare of the child. It will all depend on the priorities of the concerned parent. (Para 33) Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2022 SC 476

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court cannot issue direction to the State to form a new policy. Krishan Lal v. Vini Mahajan Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 68

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of reservation for sports persons, namely, in the present case, 3% reservation instead of 1% provided by the State Government, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 9) State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84 : AIR 2022 SC 918 : (2022) 3 SCC 633

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender- The author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements- If its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint- The technical evaluation or comparison by the Court is impermissible. (Para 17) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2022 SC 1103 : (2022) 5 SCC 362

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender- Even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. (Para 17, 20) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2022 SC 1103 : (2022) 5 SCC 362

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender - The process of interpretation of terms and conditions of contract is essentially left to the author of the tender document and the occasion for interference by the Court would arise only if the questioned decision fails on the salutary tests of irrationality or unreasonableness or bias or procedural impropriety. (Para 24) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2022 SC 1103 : (2022) 5 SCC 362

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial review in contractual / commercial / tenders / public auction matters - Superior Courts should not interfere in the matters of tenders, unless substantial public interest was involved or the transaction was malafide - Plausible decisions need not be overturned - Latitude ought to be granted to the State in exercise of its executive power. However, allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety would be enough grounds for Courts to assume jurisdiction and remedy such ills - Opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, not to be interfered with unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 19 -26) State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235 : AIR 2022 SC 1413 : (2022) 5 SCC 648

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - Limited jurisdiction - The High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. (Para 4) Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : AIR 2022 SC 1041 : (2022) 4 SCC 385

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review Of Disciplinary Proceedings - Disciplinary Proceedings - The courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate - Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision -making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved - While exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The decision are also disturbed when it is found to be ailing with perversity. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - The courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate - Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved - While exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The decision are also disturbed when it is found to be ailing with perversity. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. (Para 17) State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : (2022) 6 SCC 563

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial review of policy decisions - Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Para 16) Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2022) 5 SCC 314

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Natural justice - Natural justice is an important facet of a judicial review. Providing effective natural justice to affected parties, before a decision is taken, is necessary to maintain the Rule of law. Natural justice is usually discussed in the context of administrative actions, wherein procedural requirement of a fair hearing is read in to ensure that no injustice is caused. When it comes to judicial review, the natural justice principle is built into the rules and procedures of the Court, which are expected to be followed meticulously to ensure that highest standards of fairness are afforded to the parties. (Para 36) Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114 : (2022) 6 SCC 121

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - High Courts to be more discerning / vigilant and/or cautious while entertaining writ petitions apparently filed in public interest - (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations; (2) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL; (3) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL; (4) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition; (5) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation; and (6) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. (Para 8.12) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182 : AIR 2022 SC 1220 : (2022) 5 SCC 710

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Regularization - High Court directed the State to consider the cases of some temporary employees for regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts - Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction - No such order of absorption and/or regularisation even if required for creating supernumerary posts and not to treat the same as precedent could have been passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 6, 10) State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313 : (2022) 5 SCC 394

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ; Section 13(2) - A writ petition against the private financial institution – ARC – against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable - The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. (Para 12) Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45 : AIR 2022 SC 1045 : (2022) 5 SCC 345

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ; Section 13(2) - The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers- The High Court to be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. (Para 13.2) Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45 : AIR 2022 SC 1045 : (2022) 5 SCC 345

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - SLP challenging High Court order dismissing the writ petition challenging a tender condition - Dismissed - The clause cannot be said to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made and the same shall be applicable to all the bidders/tenderers and there is justification also shown providing such a clause. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Specific Performance - No writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8) Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : 2022 (4) SCALE 262

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 41(ha) - In view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the Writ Court. (Para 19-21) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender - High Court dismissed WPs challenging acceptance of tender following observations made in M/s N. G. Projects Ltd. Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 - Appeal allowed - High court has totally misread the Judgment - Respondent was declared eligible in a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and all fairness in the process of determining the eligibility of the tenderers. Jai Bholenath Construction v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nanded, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 542

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order - disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order - disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The appellant was serving as a Branch Officer of a Bank. A complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/­ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/ - when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer held that most of the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him. The Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service. Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved. Therefore, the High Court order was modified to the extent substituting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : AIR 2022 SC 1041 : (2022) 4 SCC 385

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to protecting the personal liberty persons who have demonstrated that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law. (Para 16) Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358 : 2022 (6) SCALE 50

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The State Government, as a juristic entity, has a right to protect its property through the writ court, just as any individual could have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. (Para 125) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it is the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons. (Para 2.1) Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petition, there is a duty cast upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2022 SC 1916

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a remedy under the statute is available filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be discouraged by the High Court. Kotak Mahindra Bank v Dilip Bhosale, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 545

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Where a party questions only the failure of the Registering Authority to perform his statutory duties in the course of the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform their duties within the bounds of law. (Para 53) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : 2022 (7) SCALE 376

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Whether the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 applicable to an interim order of stay passed by High Court in writ proceedings (writ appeal) - The order of stay granted by the Division Bench in the High Court cannot be treated as having no force - This Court cannot be understood as having intended to apply the principle to the fact situation which is presented in this case. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Appeal - Appeal against High Court judgment which dismissed special (writ) appeal without independent reasoning - Allowed - This is not the manner in which the Division Bench should have decided and disposed of the writ appeal. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction vested in it - Remanded for fresh consideration. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Appeal - Appeal against High Court judgment which dismissed special (writ) appeal without independent reasoning - Allowed - This is not the manner in which the Division Bench should have decided and disposed of the writ appeal. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction vested in it - Remanded for fresh consideration. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Appeal - There must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal. (Para 6) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Appeal - There must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal. (Para 6) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual Matters - Interim orders - Any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. (Para 26) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. (Para 23) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - Multiple layers of exercise of jurisdiction also delay the final adjudication challenging the grant of tender. It would be open to the High Courts or the Hon'ble Chief Justice to entrust these petitions to a Division Bench of the High Court, which would avoid at least hearing by one of the forums. (Para 27) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - Interpretation of terms of the contract is that the question as to whether a term of the contract is essential or not is to be viewed from the perspective of the employer and by the employer - Satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids -The Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. (Para 17, 22, 23) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Nature of the function performed by a body may be relevant for Article 226, considering the language of Article 226 which encapsulates a wide scope of legal right. (Para 22) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petition - High Court should apply its mind to the grounds of challenge and to the submissions made. State of Orissa v. Prasanta Kumar Swain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petition - Locus Standi - Registered Society of Professional Architects who claim to be teaching faculty in institutions imparting education in Architecture, filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for quashing the "Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 - High Court quashed the Regulations - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court while setting aside the High Court judgment observed: Due to the nature of its membership, the society could have been aggrieved only by the prescriptions affecting the teaching faculty. It could not have challenged the prescriptions with which they are not in any way concerned. (Para 19) Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172 : (2022) 5 SCC 161

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petitions - After a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed with NOIDA, the petitioner made a representation to it requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed - High Court directed NOIDA to consider the representation - NOIDA rejected it - This was again challenged before High Court by the Petitioner - High Court dismissed writ petition - SLP challenging the said High Court judgment dismissed. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : 2022 (4) SCALE 280

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petitions - Delay and Latches - High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly - Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation - If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation - Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. (Para 4, 5) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : 2022 (4) SCALE 280

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petitions - No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. (Para 6) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : 2022 (4) SCALE 280

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - The scope of judicial review in such foreign funded contracts should be far much less than the ordinary Government funded contracts funded from Consolidated Fund of India. The scope of judicial review in such foreign funded contracts/projects would be restricted and minimal. In such foreign funded contracts, the only ground for judicial review ought to be on a limited aspect, i.e., the action of the executing authority does not suffer from favouritism or nepotism and based on the grounds which have been concealed from the foreign financing authority, if disclosed, would have persuaded the financing authority to cancel the contract. (Para 11) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : AIR 2022 SC 866 : (2022) 6 SCC 401

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of the prima facie opinion that the decision is as such perverse and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fides and/or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petition and/or pass any appropriate interim order, High Court may put to the writ petitioner's notice that in case the petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it, he/they may be saddled with the damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to such frivolous litigations initiated by him/it. (Para 15) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : AIR 2022 SC 866 : (2022) 6 SCC 401

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - Whether the Bid submitted by a Bidder suffers from any material deviation and/or any substantial deviation should be left to the author of the Bid document and normally, the High Courts, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the same unless such a decision is found to be mala fide and/or there are allegations of favouritism and/or such a decision is arbitrary. (Para 10) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : AIR 2022 SC 866 : (2022) 6 SCC 401

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review- Disciplinary Proceedings - Where the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on evidence, or based on a consideration of irrelevant material, or ignoring relevant material, are mala fide, or where the findings are perverse or such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances, the remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution are available, and intervention, warranted. (Para 19) United Bank of India V. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 109 : 2022 (2) SCALE 644

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review- Disciplinary Proceedings - For any court to ascertain if any findings were beyond the record (i.e., no evidence) or based on any irrelevant or extraneous factors, or by ignoring material evidence, necessarily some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of "no evidence" or perversity, cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the materials, and the findings of the disciplinary authority. However, the margin of appreciation of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution would be different; it is not appellate in character. (Para 19) United Bank of India V. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 109 : 2022 (2) SCALE 644

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Appeal against High Court order which set aside the eviction order of Appellate Tribunal High Court - Allowed - The High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is impermissible - There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : 2022 (4) SCALE 654

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Section 58 (1)(a)(iii & iv) - Writ petition under Article 227 maintainable against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a) (iv) of the 2019 Act - While granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (Para 11-14.1) Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481 : AIR 2022 SC 2363

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Scope of interference by the supervisory Court on decisions of the fact -finding forum - Situations when a finding on facts or questions of law would be perverse: (i) Erroneous on account of non -consideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. (Para 10 -11) Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : 2022 (4) SCALE 654

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope of interference by the supervisory Court on decisions of the fact-finding forum is limited - Supreme Court was of the view that there was overstepping of this boundary by the High Court - in its exercise of scrutinising the evidence to find perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, there was re-appreciation of evidence itself by the High Court - the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 had gone deep into the factual arena to disagree with the final fact-finding forum - the High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : 2022 (4) SCALE 654

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. (Para 18) Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 39 : AIR 2022 SC 422 : (2022) 4 SCC 181

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. (Para 15) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : 2022 (2) SCALE 398

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227- Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India not justified in upsetting the finding of fact rendered by the Appellant Authority. Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 227, 136 - NCDRC can be regarded as a 'Tribunal' within the meaning of Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 12) Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481 : AIR 2022 SC 2363

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 227, 136 - When the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court is provided, in that case, it would be in furtherance of the right of access to justice of the aggrieved party, to approach the concerned High Court at a lower cost, rather than a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 13) Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481 : AIR 2022 SC 2363

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 233, 235 - The High Courts are well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to sub-serve this - The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment - Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confront challenges to liberty and justice. (Para 26) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286 : (2022) 4 SCC 643

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 243E, 243U - Constitutional Mandate to hold local body elections in time inviolable- Neither the State Election Commission nor the State Government or for that matter the State Legislature, including this Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can countenance dispensation to the contrary. (Para 5) Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 246 - Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Chapter III B - Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 - The moment the Parliament stepped in to codify the law relating to registration and regulation of NBFCs, by inserting certain provisions in Chapter III­B of the RBI Act, the same would cast a shadow on the applicability (even assuming it is applicable) of the provisions of the Kerala Act to NBFCs registered under the RBI Act and regulated by RBI - In cases of this nature, Article 246(1) would squarely apply. (Para 8, 8.3) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464 : 2022 (8) SCALE 163

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 246, 254 - Three important tests of inconsistency or repugnancy - (i) whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (ii) whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive Code in respect of the subject matter replacing the Act of the State legislature; and (iii) whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by State legislature occupy the same field. (Para 7.9) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464 : 2022 (8) SCALE 163

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - Repugnancy under Article 254 would arise only if both the Parliamentary law and the State law are referable to List­ III. Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464 : 2022 (8) SCALE 163

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Confiscation - By an order of confiscation, a person is deprived of the enjoyment of his property - Therefore, it is necessary for the State to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public purpose or public interest. (Para 17) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243 : 2022 (4) SCALE 401

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A - High threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State. (Para 25, 15) Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347 : 2022 (5) SCALE 719

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Requirement of public purpose is a pre-condition and right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in Article 300-A. (Para 21) Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410 : AIR 2022 SC 2073

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Administrative instructions can supplement rules which are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in a manner which does not lead to any inconsistencies. Executive instructions may fill up the gaps in the rules. But supplementing the exercise of the rule making power with the aid of administrative or executive instructions is distinct from taking the aid of administrative instructions contrary to the express provision or the necessary intendment of the rules which have been framed under Article 309. (Para 32) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Where there is a conflict between executive instructions and rules framed under Article 309, the rules must prevail. In the event of a conflict between the rules framed under Article 309 and a law made by the appropriate legislature, the law prevails. Where the rules are skeletal or in a situation when there is a gap in the rules, executive instructions can supplement what is stated in the rule. (Para 28) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 311 - Civil Post - Holding a license to run the fair price shop cannot be said to be holding a civil post. Manju Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 311(2) - Judicial Service - When the Government had, on enquiry, come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the appellant was unsuitable for the post he held on probation, this was clearly by way of punishment and, hence, the appellant would be entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 50) Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284 : 2022 (4) SCALE 784

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 323A, 323B, 226, 227- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 25 - Any decision of Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. (Para 16) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2022 SC 499 : (2022) 3 SCC 133

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 338B - The requirement of consultation with an expert constitutional body is indeed mandatory and it would be fatal to disregard the provision - Article 338- B(9) does not stop the State from enacting a legislation in furtherance of a major policy matter but states that the State Government shall consult the Commission on such matters - The consequence of disregarding a mandatory consultation provision would normally render the legislation void as it is in breach of an obligatory requirement to consult an expert constitutional body. (Para 75-76) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 342 - A person entitled to be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par with a person who is brought in by an incompetent Body, viz., the State in the manner done. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 342 - Scheme - Manner in which the members of the Scheduled Tribe are to be recognised - Power with the President after consultation with the State to specify the Tribes which are to be treated as Scheduled Tribes in that State or the Union Territory as the case may be. Parliament is empowered to include or exclude from the list. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 356 - Breakdown of Constitutional machinery - Law & Order - Gujarat Riots case - Breakdown of law-and-order situation if for short duration,cannot partake the colour of breakdown of rule of law or constitutional crisis. To put it differently, misgovernance or failure to maintain law-and-order during a brief period may not be a case of failure of constitutional machinery in the context of tenets embodied in Article 356 of the Constitution-There must be credible evidence regarding State sponsored breakdown of law-and-order situation; not spontaneous or isolated instances or events of failure of State administration to control the situation. (Para 45) Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 558 : 2022 (9) SCALE 385

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 13 of List III of Seventh Schedule - The subject of arbitration is in the Concurrent List, the State can also make a law with regard to the same. The only requirement is that to validate such a law, it is necessary to reserve the same for consideration of the President of India and obtain his assent. When such an assent is obtained, the provisions of the State Law or Act so enacted would prevail in the State concerned, notwithstanding its repugnancy with an earlier Parliamentary enactment made on the subject. (Para 62, 127(i)) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 34,62 List II & Entry 40 of List I of Seventh Schedule - 'Lotteries' is a species of gambling activity and hence within the ambit of 'betting and gambling' as appearing in Entry 34 List II - It is only lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of State in terms of Entry 40 of List I which are excluded from Entry 34 of List II - If lotteries are conducted by private parties or by instrumentalities or agencies authorized, by Government of India or the Government of State, it would come within the scope and ambit of Entry 34 of List II - The State Legislatures have the power to tax lotteries under Entry 62 of List II. (Para 124) State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309 : 2022 (5) SCALE 262

Constitution of India, 1950; Part IXA - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009; Section 5, 329 - The scheme of Part IXA does not contemplate a separate notification under Article 243Q of the Constitution and thereafter under Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. As Section 5 of the Municipalities Act is not inconsistent with any provisions of Article 243Q of the Constitution, therefore, two notifications are not contemplated or warranted under the Scheme of Part IXA or the Municipalities Act - The State Government is competent to divide the Municipalities in the State into classes according to their income or other factors like population or importance of the local area and other circumstances as provided under Section 329 of the Municipalities Act. (Para 16-17) State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Constitution of India, 1950; Part IXA - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009; Section 5, 329 - Appeal against Rajasthan High Court set aside a notification declaring Gram Panchayat Roopbas, District Bharatpur as Municipal Board on the ground that no public notification as contemplated under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India has been produced specifying Gram Panchayat Roopbas as a "transitional area" and thus, it cannot be declared as a Municipal Board - Allowed - State Government had exercised powers to establish Municipality in terms of Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Constitutional Validity - Mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to attract the constitutional inhibition - There is presumption that the Parliament understands and reacts to the needs of its own people as per the exigencies and experience gained in the implementation of the law. (Para 59) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355 : 2022 (5) SCALE 775

Legislation - A statute which is made by a competent legislature is valid till it is declared unconstitutional by a court of law. After declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a court of law, it is non est for all purposes. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Legislation - Distinction between declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a Court of law and the repeal of a statute by the Legislature - On declaration of a statute as unconstitutional, it becomes void ab initio. Saving past transactions are within the exclusive domain of the Court - Though the consequence of repeal is also obliteration of the statute with retrospective effect on past transactions, the Legislature is empowered to introduce a saving clause in the repealing act. (Para 20) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Legislation - Repeal - There is no question of repeal of a statute which has been declared as unconstitutional by a Court. The very declaration by a Court that a statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed. The consequences of declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute have to be dealt with only by the Court. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Legislation - Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. (Para 9) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Legislation - Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. (Para 9) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Legislative Assembly - Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution of July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behavior in the house - Resolution directing suspension of the petitioners beyond the period of the remainder of the concerned Monsoon Session held in July 2021 is non est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational - In absence of any express provision bestowing power in the Legislature to suspend its member(s) beyond the term of the ongoing Session, the inherent power of the Legislature can be invoked only to the extent necessary and for proper exercise of the functions of the House at the relevant point of time. Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2022 SC 721

Legislative Assembly - There can be no place for disorderly conduct in the House much less "grossly disorderly". Such conduct must be dealt with sternly for ensuring orderly functioning of the House. But, that action must be constitutional, legal, rational and as per the procedure established by law. (Para 74) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2022 SC 721

Legislative Assembly Rules (Maharashtra); Rule 53 - The word "suspension" is necessarily linked to attendance of the member in the House. Thus, the suspension may be resorted to merely for ensuring orderly conduct of the business of the House during the concerned Session. Anything in excess of that would be irrational suspension. (Para 54) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2022 SC 721

Legitimate Expectation - A facet of Article 14 of the Constitution - The doctrine of legitimate expectations can be invoked if a representation made by a public body leads an individual to believe that they would be a recipient of a substantive benefit. (Para 26) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289 : 2022 (5) SCALE 52

Local Body Elections - Ongoing activity of delimitation or formation of ward cannot be a legitimate ground to be set forth by any authority much less the State Election Commission - to not discharge its constitutional obligation in notifying the election programme at the opportune time and to ensure that the elected body is installed before the expiry of 5 (five) years term of the outgoing elected body. (Para 11) Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463

One Rank One Pension - No constitutional infirmity in the OROP principle as defined by the communication dated 7 November 2015 - The definition of OROP is uniformly applicable to all the pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement - The cut-off date is used only for the purpose of determining the base salary for the calculation of pension- Varying pension payable to officers of the same rank retiring before and after 1 July 2014 either due to MACP or the different base salary used for the calculation of pension cannot be held arbitrary. (Para 49) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289 : 2022 (5) SCALE 52

Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - Externment - Externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances - As the order takes away fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, it must stand the test of reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19. (Para 7, 12, 14) Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2022 SC 1241

Practice and Procedure - Interim order - In matters involving challenge to the constitutionality of a legislation or a rule, the Court must be wary to pass an interim order, unless the Court is convinced that the rules are prima facie arbitrary. (Para 30) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73 : (2022) 4 SCC 1

Practice and Procedure - Stay of Legislation - Stay of legislation can only be when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional - Sufficient reasons should be given for staying legislations. State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Precedent - Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved. The generality of the expressions which are found in a judgment cannot be considered to be intended to be exposition of the whole law. They will have to be governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. (Para 31) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Precedent - Per Incuriam - "Incuria" literally means "carelessness". A decision or judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the Court. It can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co­equal or larger Bench. (Para 67) Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd. v. A. Balakrishna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Precedent - Ratio Decidendi - Ratio decidendi is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. It has been held that one additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. (Para 33) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Precedent - Whenever the State or instrumentalities of State come up with appeals challenging small benefits granted to individual litigants, this Court applies the test of proportionality to see whether the quantum of benefits granted to the individual concerned, justifies the examination of the question of law, at the cost of that little man from a far off place. The refusal of this Court to go into the question of law in such cases, cannot be treated as tantamounting to answering the question of law in a particular manner. (Para 15) Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Precedents - A decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court cannot be questioned on certain suggestions about different interpretation of the provisions under consideration - The binding effect of a decision of the Supreme Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced, was actually decided therein. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248 : 2022 (4) SCALE 500

Precedents - A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. The judgment has to be construed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which the judgment has been rendered. Words, phrases and sentences in a judgment, cannot be read out of context. Nor is a judgment to be read and interpreted in the manner of a statute. It is only the law as interpreted by in an earlier judgment, which constitutes a binding precedent, and not everything that the Judges say. (Para 41) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Pre-emption - Maligned law. Such rights have been characterized as feudal, archaic and outmoded. Such right of pre-emption has been taken away and all proceedings pending before any authority have been ordered to be abated including proceedings in any other Court. Any other Court is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court. (Para 12) Punyadeo Sharma v. Kamla Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 23

Premature Release - Relevant Considerations - Prior criminal history, conduct and behaviour in jail, possible danger to society, etc. are relevant considerations - The application has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the applicant was convicted of the offence. (Para 6, 7) Sharafat Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Premature Release Policy - Validity of clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years which would imply that a young offender of 20 years will have to serve 40 years before his case for remission can be considered - Implies that a young offender of 20 years will have to serve 40 years before his case for remission can be considered - The State Government to re-examine this part of the Policy which prima-facie does not seems to be sustainable. Mata Prasad vs State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Reservation - The reservation for OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses is constitutionally valid. (Para 59) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73 : (2022) 4 SCC 1

Reservation - The reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in unreserved categories - Even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates - Candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so. (Para 8-9) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Sandeep Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 419

Reservation - Vacating earlier interim order, the Court refused to stay the G.O. dated 07.11.2020 issued in the State of Tamil Nadu purporting to reserve 50% seats at the Super Specialty level in Government Medical Colleges to in-service doctors - Expressed a prima facie view that States are competent to provide such reservation. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 294

Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Maharashtra); Section 14B(1) - Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - If the State Election Commission or its delegatee were to reject or drop the proceedings against the concerned person or member initiated under Section 14B(1), as being devoid of merits or for any other reason, the complainant does not have remedy of appeal against such decision. Such an order becomes final and is not appealable at all. Indeed, it can be assailed before the constitutional court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 18) Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Divisional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11 : (2022) 3 SCC 35

Voluntary Retirement Scheme - VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. It is the right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee's application for voluntary retirement, the employer take any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407 : (2022) 6 SCC 211