Supreme Court Quarterly Digest 2022 - Constitutional Law (Jan - Mar)

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

Constitution (74th 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

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

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

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

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 backward 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Preservation of family life is an incident of Article 21. (Para 51) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - 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, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 24 Mar 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313

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

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

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

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, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

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

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

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 - 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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; 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

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

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) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

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) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

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

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

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

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

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

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

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