Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2023 -Constitution Of India

Article 299 - No immunity from statute merely because a contract is entered in the President's name. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777 : 2023 INSC 568

The Writ Court cannot stop implementation of a statutory provision without holding it unconstitutional. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Non-tribal person's right to settle down & vote in scheduled areas not taken away by 5th schedule of Constitution. Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658 : 2023 INSC 512

GNCTD vs LG: Supreme Court holds Delhi Govt has control over "services" excluding Public Order, Police & Land. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881 : 2023 INSC 517

Delhi Govt vs LG | Democratically elected Govt. should have power to control its officers to ensure accountability. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881 : 2023 INSC 517

"Governance of States can't be taken over by Union': Supreme Court underscores importance of federalism in Delhi Govt vs LG Case. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881 : 2023 INSC 517

Precedents - While it is open to a learned Judge to differ with a view of a Co-ordinate Bench the sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers being placed before the learned Chief Justice. The learned Judge cannot simply say "with due respect, I do not agree to the ratio..." or “the decision is per incuriam as a binding judgment of the Supreme Court has not been considered….” and proceed to take a contrary view - Such an approach would result in conflicting opinions of Coordinate Benches, resulting in judicial chaos and is, thus, improper. This is something atrocious and unacceptable. (Para 81) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365 : 2023 INSC 460

Domicile Reservation - Domicile reservation can't be wholesale reservation - Supreme Court asks MP Govt to review its 75% domicile quota in B.Ed seats - though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 364 : 2023 INSC 457

Governors should return bills as soon as possible: Supreme Court observes in Telangana Government's plea against governor. State of Telangana v. Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 356

'No equality in matter of illegality': Supreme Court denies relief to school teacher dismissed for degree through distance education. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Access to Justice - Fundamental right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court - The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution. (Para 112) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271

Article 30 - Minority educational institution cannot claim exemption from admission & fee regulatory committee. Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728 : 2023 INSC 256

'Dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to bottom': Supreme Court reprimands Punjab CM, Governor. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : 2023 INSC 181

Two important aspects of Parliamentary democracy - There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy. First, the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation. Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship. (Para 25) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : 2023 INSC 181

On maintaining civility in discourses between Constitutional functionaries - Political differences in a democratic polity have to be worked upon and sorted out with a sense of sobriety and maturity. The dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be borne in mind, the realization of constitutional values may be placed in jeopardy-We can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship will ensure that such instances do not occur in the future as much as we reiterate our expectation that constitutional functionaries must be cognizant of the public trust in the offices which they occupy. The public trust which is entrusted to them is intended to sub-serve the cause of our citizens and to ensure that the affairs of the nation are conducted with a sense of equanimity so as to accomplish the objects of the Preamble to the Constitution. (Para 26) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : 2023 INSC 181

Article 226(2) - Supreme Court explains tests to determine if cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of the High Court. State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247 : 2023 INSC 229

Petition under article 32 to challenge a binding judgment not maintainable. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179

'You want to keep the country on boil? don't belittle hinduism's greatness': Supreme Court dismisses Ashwini Upadhyay's plea to rename cities. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156 : 2023 INSC 174

'A Country can't remain prisoner of past': Supreme Court dismisses plea to rename cities named after muslim rulers; stresses on India's secular character. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156 : 2023 INSC 174

Secularism - India, that is ‘Bharat’ in terms of the preamble, is a secular country- The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State’s action. (Para 8, 9) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156 : 2023 INSC 174

Plea to rename places named after Muslim rulers - Supreme Court dismisses - The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past- The history of any nation cannot haunt the future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past. (Para 9, 11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156 : 2023 INSC 174

Fraternity - The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic. We must constantly remind ourselves that courts of law, as indeed every part of the ‘State’, must be guided by the sublime realisation, that Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution. (Para 11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156 : 2023 INSC 174

Constitutional Court - A High Court ~ howsoever big or small, old or new ~ is as much a Constitutional Court as this Court is and enjoys wide ranging powers vested in it by law. (Para 42) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : AIR 2023 SC 1338 : 2023 INSC 176

'Service as Adhoc Judges can't be considered for elevation as HC Judges': Supreme Court rejects plea of judicial officers from AP. C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : AIR 2023 SC 1214 : 2023 INSC 155

Minority school not entitled to state grant towards salary for employee retained beyond retirement age. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : AIR 2023 SC 1155 : (2023) 2 SCR 487 : 2023 INSC 147

Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) is a 'State' u/Article 12. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115

High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, they are constitutional courts. Shankar Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

Article 170 of Constitution not applicable to legislatures of union territories: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

While upholding J&K delimitation, the Supreme Court rejects comparisons with Telangana/AP & North Eastern states. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

Parliament can convert existing state into a union territory: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

Right to Die: Supreme Court makes it easier for persons to opt for passive euthanasia; Simplifies 2018 guidelines on living will/advance directive. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79 : (2023) 1 SCR 1137 : 2023 INSC 77

Excommunication among dawoodi bohras: Supreme Court refers to the nine-judge sabarimala bench. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293 : 2023 INSC 115

'Excommunication is subject to constitutional morality, results in civil death': Supreme Court doubts precedent upholding right to excommunicate. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293 : 2023 INSC 115

Supreme Court Constitution Bench doubts the correctness of the decision in Sardar Syedna Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, 1962 Suppl (2) SCR 496 which struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293 : 2023 INSC 115

Justice Victoria Gowri's appointment: Supreme Court rejects argument that collegium was not aware of facts; says no judicial review over suitability. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463 : 2023 INSC 122

Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging the appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri as judge of the Madras High Court - says suitability cannot be a subject matter of judicial review - collegium recommendation cannot be examined on the judicial side. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463 : 2023 INSC 122

Supreme Court invalidates GAIL's condition imposed on IPCL, Says writ jurisdiction can be applied when contractual terms are arbitrary. Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326 : 2023 INSC 103

Purse seine fishing - Supreme Court passes restricted interim order allowing the purse-seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu but within the Exclusive Economic Zone with conditions. Fisherman Care v. Govt of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 58 : AIR 2023 SC 655 : 2023 INSC 82

Legislature cannot directly overrule a judgment; but can retrospectively remove its foundation to make it ineffective. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721 : 2023 INSC 81

The Constitution does not prohibit appointment of lawyer practising in the Supreme Court as Judge of High Courts. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

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

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

No one can be penalised for holding an opinion not in confirmity with constitutional values. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 4

Minister's speech a 'constitutional tort' if it leads to acts of officers harming persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 4

The Prime Minister / Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over other ministers. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 4

Ministers' Statements in official capacity cannot be vicariously attributed to Govt: Supreme Court; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 4

Constitution of India, 1950 – Floor Test - the decision to call for a floor test should be based on objective material and reasons which are relevant and germane to the exercise of discretion, and not extraneous to it. The Governor should not use their discretionary power to destabilise or displace democratically elected governments. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 – Governor - The discretion vested in the Governor to call for a floor test is not unfettered, and must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. The Governor is a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case, the Governor must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 – Governor - The power of the Governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an extraordinary nature. The exercise of such power has ramifications on parliamentary democracy. Hence, the ambit of the exercise of such power by the Governor must be calibrated to meet the exigencies of situations where the Governor is satisfied on the basis of objective material that there is sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of their extraordinary power. The discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion but one that must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 - In the absence of specific pleadings, a writ court cannot get into the issues of repugnancy or lack of legislative competence. Unless the statutory provision is declared unconstitutional, its implementation cannot be stopped. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Constitution of India, 1950 - It is the "political party" which has the power to appoint a whip and the leader and not the "legislature party". Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – At the highest, the various communications expressed the fact that a faction of MLAs disagreed with some policy decisions of the party. The course of action they wished to adopt in order to air their grievances and redress them was, at the time the floor test was directed to be conducted, uncertain. Whether they would choose to enter deliberations with their colleagues in the House or in the political party, or mobilise the cadres, or resign from the Assembly in protest, or opt to merge with another party, was uncertain. Therefore, the Governor erred in relying upon the resolution signed by a faction of the SSLP (Shiv Sena Legislature Party) MLAs to conclude that Mr. Thackeray had lost the support of the majority of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - Governor cannot enter political arena, floor test not to decide intra-party disputes - The Governor could not have entered the internal party dispute by ordering the floor test, particularly in absence of any "objective material" to dislodge the presumption of confidence of House ingrained in a democratically elected government. The letters by some MLAs (or even by then Leader of Opposition in this case) for a direction to the Chief Minister to prove his majority does not, taken alone, amount to a relevant reason to call for a floor test. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled. They certainly do not empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes. It follows from this that the Governor cannot act upon an inference that he has drawn that a section of the Shiv Sena wished to withdraw their support to the Government on the floor of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - the decision taken by the Governor to call for a floor test based on the rebellion of Eknath Shinde-led faction and to direct then CM Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House, was wrong. The Governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government. The resolution on which the Governor relied did not contain any indication that the MLAs wished to exit from the MVA government. The communication expressing discontent on the part of some MLAs is not sufficient for the Governor to call for a floor test. The Governor ought to apply his mind to the communication (or any other material) before him to assess whether the Government seemed to have lost the confidence of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – The Court cannot order the restoration of the Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned without facing a floor test. Since Thackeray voluntarily resigned, the Governor was right in inviting Ekanth Shinde form the government with the support of BJP. Had Mr. Thackeray refrained from resigning from the post of the Chief Minister, this court could have considered the grant of the remedy of reinstating the government headed by him. The Court cannot quash a resignation which was voluntarily tendered. The Governor's earlier decision to order a floor test for the Maha Vikas Aghadi government as well as the Speaker's decision to appoint the whip nominated by Shinde group were incorrect. The correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia is referred to a larger Bench of seven judges. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406 : 2023 INSC 516

Constitution of India, 1950 - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the State amendments made to the central law Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to allow the conduct of animal sports like Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing in these respective States. These amendments were passed by the States after the Supreme Court in 2014 banned jallikettu and similar activities in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. These laws cannot be construed as "colourable legislations" and that the State legislature had the legislative power to make these amendments as per Entry 17 to List III of the Seventh Schedule. These amendments do not go contrary to the ratio of the judgment in Nagaraja. These laws cure the defects pointed out by the judgment in Nagaraja. The effect of these laws is to minimise the pain and suffering caused to animals. The amendments, having received the assent of the President, cannot be faulted. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447 : AIR 2023 SC 2612 : 2023 INSC 548

Constitution of India, 1950 - the state shall make all possible efforts to ensure equitable access to health services. These efforts must be made to progressively realise the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, as acknowledged in international conventions and agreements. However, notwithstanding the right of the state to devise policies for public health and medical education with due regard to peculiar social and financial conditions, policies that cause an unfair disadvantage towards any class of citizens, ought not be formulated. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721 : 2023 INSC 81

Constitution of India, 1950 - The citizens residing in rural areas have an equal right to access healthcare services by duly qualified staff. Policies for enhancing access to rural healthcare must not short-change. The citizens residing in rural areas are subjected to direct and indirect forms of discrimination on the basis of their place of birth or residence. Any variation in the standards of the qualifications required of medical practitioners who render services in rural areas qua those rendering services in urban and metropolitan areas circumscribe constitutional values of substantive equality and non-discrimination. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721 : 2023 INSC 81

Constitution of India, 1950 - Constitution does not prohibit lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court - in fact, the Supreme Court has given imprimatur to the principle that in suitable cases Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court can be considered for appointment to the High Court. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950 - Constitutional Tort - A mere statement made by a minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen of Part III of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable as a constitutional tort. But, if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person or citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort. [Justice Nagarathna dissents] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 4

Constitution of India, 1950 - Whether Minister’s statement can be vicariously attributed to government - A statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protection of the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility- Justice Nagarathna dissents to hold that statements in official capacity reflecting views of the govt can be vicariously attributed to the govt. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 4

Article 3 - Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

Article 4 - Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament is empowered by law to create a body of legislature for the Union territories of Puducherry and J&K.- Even if the law made by Parliament creating a body of legislature for Union territories of Puducherry and J&K has the effect of amending certain parts of the Constitution, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

Article 12 – Definition “the State’’

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government of India. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Article 14 - Equality before law

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 32 - Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005; Rule 5 - Promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the Cadre of District Judge (65% quota) - It is required to be noted that in the present case and as per the merit list produced before the High Court, the candidates, who have secured much more marks are denied promotion and the candidates / Civil Judge (Senior Division), who are having less marks / leas meritorious are promoted. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 secured 135.50 out of 200 marks and the petitioner No. 2 secured 148.50 marks out of 200 against which a candidate having secured 101 marks have got the promotion, which is affecting the principle of “merit-cum-seniority”. Thus, we are more than satisfied that the impugned Select List dated 10.03.2023 issued by the High Court and the subsequent Notification dated 18.04.2023 issued by the State Government granting promotion to the cadre of District Judge are illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules and Regulations and even to the decision of this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra). Therefore, we are more than prima facie satisfied that the same as such are not sustainable. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 426 : AIR 2023 SC 2328 : 2023 INSC 532

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14 and 16 - Whether different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre, on the basis of educational qualifications possessed by them? - the issue is no longer res integra - classification based on educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2023 SC 2164 : 2023 INSC 434

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Doctrine of Equality - there cannot be equality in the matter of illegality - can't claim benefit of illegal orders passed in the cases of other persons - denies relief to school teacher who secured bachelor's degree through distance education. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation, which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. (Para 13.2) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717 : 2023 INSC 29

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - classification between Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini Landowners is based on one class of landowners being sons of the soil, while the other class being mere landowners, who are not directly attached to the land- not reasonable classification- The justification given by the GNOIDA Authority, and the Full-bench of the High Court assumes that only Pushtaini landowners permanently reside in the subject land or that the subject land is the primary source of income only for Pushtaini landowners, and this assumption has been backed by no empirical data produced by the authority-t. Many Gair-pushtaini landholders, whose main area of residence or their main source of income is also the subject land, would be subject to great discrimination and injustice, if the same compensation that has been granted to the pushtaini landholders is not extended to them. (Para 38 to 40) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422 : 2023 INSC 144

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Equality test for permissible amendments – Right to Equality – Even permissible amendments would have to be tested on the touchstone of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution – Reducing cut-off marks only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category when other candidates had already acquired some right – Held, violative of right to equality being based not on objective criteria such as the candidates’ suitability but on extraneous reasons namely to accommodate otherwise ineligible candidates – Further held, cut-off marks could not be reduced in the absence of a sound reason that would indicate that the reduced marks also would be sufficient to determine suitability for appointment to advertised posts. (Paras 25, 30) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543 : 2023 INSC 145

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Supreme Court holds the condition imposed by GAIL on IPCL to be arbitrary- the contractual exercise of providing such a clause runs contrary to every commercial and common sense and is manifestly arbitrary, as IPCL is not being charged under any general terms but for a specific purpose. This purpose cannot exist in the contract in view of the master authority, i.e., the Union of India, providing to the contrary. (Para 21) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326 : 2023 INSC 103

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Test of classification - To survive the rigors of Article 14, the impugned classification must not only make it through the test of reasonableness, but also clear the Wednesbury Principle, and by extension the Proportionality test. (Para 41) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422 : 2023 INSC 144

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Test of Proportionality - The classification, as discussed above, if allowed to exist, can lead to several Gair-pushtaini landowners who may also need to be rehabilitated, cannot rehabilitate themselves without compensation for the same. Such a mischief, if allowed to exist, would not only nullify the purpose of the Act, but also violate the third and fourth principle of the proportionality test, and hence is liable to be struck down. (Para 55) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422 : 2023 INSC 144

Article 15 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15 - The female heirs, subject to the statutory rule operating in that field, are required to be treated equally to the male heirs. Gender equality is recognised by the world community in general in the human rights regime - Exclusion of women from inheritance on the ground of gender was a clear violation of the constitutional prohibition against unfair discrimination. (Para 15) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717 : 2023 INSC 29

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(e) - Whether a non-Tribal has the right to settle down in a Scheduled Area – Held, every citizen has a right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. However, by making a law, reasonable restrictions can be put on the said Fundamental Right as provided in Clause (5) of Article 19. Therefore, we reject the argument that non-Tribals have no right to settle down in a Scheduled Area. (Para 14) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658 : 2023 INSC 512

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(2) - the non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The reasons for denying a security clearance to MBL, that is, its alleged antiestablishment stance and the alleged link of the shareholders to JEIH, are not legitimate purposes for the restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In any event, there was no material to demonstrate any link of the shareholders, as was alleged. Principles of Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice ensure that justice is not only done but it is seen to be done as well. A reasoned order is one of the fundamental requirements of fair administration. (Para 56) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269 : 2023 INSC 324

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(a) - Press Freedom - An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a democratic republic - Its role in a democratic society is crucial for it shines a light on the functioning of the state. The press has a duty to speak truth to power, and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction. The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenised view on issues that range from socioeconomic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy. The critical views of the Channel, Media-One on policies of the government cannot be termed, ‘anti-establishment’. The use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment. The action of the MIB by denying a security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views which the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a chilling effect on free speech, and in particular on press freedom. (Para 166 and 167) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269 : 2023 INSC 324

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

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

Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20 (2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8) - Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over - Investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. (Para 77) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365 : 2023 INSC 460

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(1) - the legal position to be taken into consideration is that an Amendment Act cannot post facto criminalize possession. This proposition does not require much deliberation and is well settled that retroactive criminal legislation being violative of Article 20(1), one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution is prohibited. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245 : 2023 INSC 301

Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The right to health is an intrinsic element of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Life, to be enjoyed in all its diverse elements, must be based on robust conditions of health. There has been a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the women who underwent unnecessary hysterectomies. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310 : 2023 INSC 322

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Whether, given the language employed under Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present situation constitutes a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights? Held, Protection of the rights under Article 21 entails protection of liberty from any restriction thereupon in the absence of fair legal procedure. Fair legal procedure includes the opportunity for the person filing an appeal to question the conclusions drawn by the trial court. The same can only be done when the record is available with the Court of Appeal. That is the mandate of Section 385 of the CrPC. Therefore, it is not within prudence to lay down a straightjacket formula, held that non­compliance with the mandate of the section, in certain cases contingent upon specific facts and circumstances of the case, would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 35) Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347 : 2023 INSC 419

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right to die with dignity - Passive Euthanasia - Supreme Court Constitution Bench simplifies the procedure for executing living will/advance directive by modifiying the he judgment reported in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and Another (2018) 5 SCC 1 - the Court allows the application filed by Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine seeking clarification of the judgment. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79 : (2023) 1 SCR 1137 : 2023 INSC 77

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 21 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) - The exclusion of Old Indian settlers, who have permanently settled in Sikkim prior to merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975 from the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) is hereby held to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hereby struck down. (Para 13- 17) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717 : 2023 INSC 29

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 21 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) Proviso - Proviso to Section 10(26AAA) inasmuch as it excludes from the provision of exemption a Sikkimese woman merely because she marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008 is totally discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India - A woman is not a chattel and has an identity of her own, and the mere factum of being married ought not to take away that identity. (Para 15-17.1) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717 : 2023 INSC 29

Article 22 - Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (5) - illegible documents given to the detenue in preventive detention can cause prejudice in submitting a representation. This violates the principles under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, where the detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue. (Para 39) Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293 : (2023) 2 SCR 793 : 2023 INSC 344

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - Even assuming that the excommunication of members of the Dawoodi Bohra community is always made on religious grounds, the effect and consequences thereof, on the person excommunicated needs to be considered in the context of justiciable Constitutional rights. The excommunication will have many civic consequences which will, prima facie, affect his fundamental right to live with dignity and the right to lead a meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21. Therefore, the question is is whether the said right of the community to excommunicate its members can be balanced with the other fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and in particular, Article 21. (Para 31) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293 : 2023 INSC 115

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - the protection under Article 26(b) granted by the decision in the case of Sardar Syedna1 to the power to excommunicate a member of the Dawoodi Bohra community, needs reconsideration as the said right is subject to morality which is understood as Constitutional morality-This issue will require examination by a larger Bench. (Para 28) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293 : 2023 INSC 115

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - Right to Excommunicate - prima facie, we find that the exercise of balancing the rights under Article 26(b) with other rights under Part III and in particular Article 21 was not undertaken by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sardar Syedna- This question is substantially in issue before the Bench of nine Judges in Sabrimala Temple Review . Moreover, the question whether the protection can be given by Article 26(b) to the practice of excommunication is to be tested on the touchstone of the concept of Constitutional morality as the said right is subject to morality. (Para 34) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293 : 2023 INSC 115

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226, 227 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate - Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review - Even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. (Para 6-7) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 : AIR 2023 SC 554 : (2023) 1 SCR 961 : 2023 INSC 55

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30 - If an employee is continued in service by the management of any registered minority Secondary School receiving Grant-in-Aid from the State-Government, then such school would not be entitled to receive any grant in respect of the expenditure incurred for continuing such employee beyond the stipulated superannuation age. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : AIR 2023 SC 1155 : (2023) 2 SCR 487 : 2023 INSC 147

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30(1) - It is not open to the appellant society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. (Para 16) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728 : 2023 INSC 256

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30(1) - Setting up a reasonable fee structure is also a component of the right to establish and administer an institution, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly or in any form - it is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving that purpose. (Para 12) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728 : 2023 INSC 256

Article 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - The parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (Para 41) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375 : 2023 INSC 468

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Plea of Supreme Court Bar Association for conversion of plot allotted to the Court as lawyers' chambers cannot be entertained on the judicial side - However, matter left open to be considered on the administrative side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236 : 2023 INSC 278

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - while exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision - it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person. [Para 10] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463 : 2023 INSC 122

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - The issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence - This question should be raised by the petitioner before the Special Court, since an answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out. (Para 46) Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86 : AIR 2023 SC 875 : (2023) 4 SCC 357 : 2023 INSC 101

Article 51A – Fundamental Duties

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 51A - casts an obligation on every citizen, and more so on every judge, to promote harmony, spirit of common brotherhood among all transcending religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities. [Para 12] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463 : 2023 INSC 122

Article 77 - Conduct of business of the Government of India

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority. (Para 101) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - the notification dated 2 August 2019 was not issued in the name of the President. However, this does not render the notification invalid. The effect of not complying with Article 77 is that the Union Government cannot claim the benefit of the irrebuttable presumption that the notification dated 2 August 2019 was issued by the President. Hence, the appellants’ argument that the notification dated 2 August 2019 is invalid and unconstitutional is specious. (Para 102) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271

Article 131 - Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 131 - Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998; Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010; Rule 5 – Constitutional Validity of – Decision of Larger Bench pending - It is the contention of the Union of India and several of the impleaded States that this suit is not maintainable - No doubt, if this Court is required to decide the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions of the Act of 1998, it may be necessary to await the decision of the Larger Bench, but not otherwise. Therefore, at this stage, it would be premature to nonsuit the State of Meghalaya on the ground that this suit is not maintainable or to keep it on hold for all purposes, pending the decision of the Larger Bench. As the State of Meghalaya seeks to assert its right to do business in lotteries under Article 298(b) and its executive power to do so would be subject to parliamentary legislation, viz., the Act of 1998, the grievances raised by it in that context would constitute disputes which fall squarely within the four corners of Article 131 of the Constitution. The position that emerges is that the suit of the present nature and in its present form cannot be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable. (Para 13 - 15) State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427 : 2023 INSC 522

Article 136 - Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Concurrent finding of fact does not call for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any valid ground for interference. (Para 3) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894 : 2023 INSC 95

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - It is true that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, are usually, not to be interfered with. However, it is only in the presence of exceptional circumstances, this Court exercises its wide powers where there is travesty of justice and when absurd and erroneous conclusions are drawn by the Courts below. We are of the opinion that this is one such case fit for exercising the powers entrusted to us as a duty under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 17) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227 : (2023) 2 SCR 746 : 2023 INSC 241

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Power of the Supreme Court - In the absence of very special circumstances or in the presence of gross errors of law committed by the High Court, the Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. The limitations under Article 136 are self-imposed limitations where in the ordinary course appreciation of evidence is not to be done in the absence of manifest error or the judgment, subject matter of the special leave, being ex facie perverse. (Para 17.10) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965 : 2023 INSC 238

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in respect of cases where concurrent findings are recorded by the Lower Courts – If doubt lingers with respect to the probability or conclusiveness of any circumstance relied on by the prosecution, forming a link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of convict, despite the existence of concurrent findings, the evidence has to be scrutinized by the Supreme Court so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and it points to the guilt of the convict and it did not brook any hypothesis other than the guilt of the convict. (Para 13) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : (2023) 2 SCR 661 : 2023 INSC 234

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Though the Scope of Article 136 of Constitution of India is very wide, the power conferred thereunder being a very special and extraordinary power, it has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases. (Para 15) Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : AIR 2023 SC 1308 : 2023 INSC 179

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - In cases of offences relating to matrimonial disputes, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed. Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Insolvency of Reliance Home Finance Ltd (RHFL) - the Supreme Court allowed the Resolution Plan (RP) proposed by Authum Investments and Infrastructure Ltd. (AIIL) to cover the debenture holders of RHFL - the plan will not cover dissenting debenture holders - the dissenting debenture holders should be provided an option to accept the terms of the resolution plan who proposed such acquisition or they can pursue other legal remedies to recover their dues. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173 : AIR 2023 SC 1459 : 2023 INSC 205

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot issue directions in violation of the statutory provisions; and sympathy or sentiment, by itself, cannot be a ground for passing an order beyond and contrary to the legal rights. (Para 23) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : (2023) 2 SCR 1049 : 2023 INSC 247

Article 162 - Extent of executive power of State

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 167 - The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. Once such information is sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it - Not furnishing the information which was sought by the Governor would be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b). (Para 24) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : 2023 INSC 181

Article 170 - Composition of the Legislative Assemblies.

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 170 - Article 170 deals with only the State Legislature. It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories. The reason is that the Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A and not by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI. (Para 23) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 174 - There can be no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted to the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion. (Para 22) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : 2023 INSC 181

Article 200 - Examination of complainant

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - observing that the consultative process is to limit the judicial review, restricting it to the specified area, that is, eligibility, and not suitability - judicial review lies when there is lack of eligibility or ‘lack of effective consultation’. Judicial review does not lie on ‘content’ of consultation. [Para 4] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463 : 2023 INSC 122

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - prescribes the constitutional requirement of consultation - prescribes the procedure to be followed, which procedure is designed to test the fitness of a person so to be appointed; her character, her integrity, her competence, her knowledge and the like. [Para 3] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463 : 2023 INSC 122

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2)(a) - Supreme Court rejects the petition filed by nine judicial officers from Andhra Pradesh for consideration for elevation as HC judges- Court holds that their service as ad-hoc judges cannot be reckoned for the purposes of Article 217(2)(a). (Para 8) C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : AIR 2023 SC 1214 : 2023 INSC 155

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

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

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

Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - the High Court, even while deciding a bail application, has the power to issue other directions in the interest of justice. Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435 : 2023 INSC 519

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The observations are not to be construed to imply that the High Courts should delve into the efficacy of investigation at the stage of bail, and the present judgment is not to be misread to haul up the investigative agencies/officers in all cases. (Para 15) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435 : 2023 INSC 519

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 and 227 - The High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers. The powers are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice. (Para 12) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435 : 2023 INSC 519

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Supreme Court deprecates High Court entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters, especially against private banks - When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320 : 2023 INSC 379

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper - Mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition “not maintainable" - Where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. (Para 4-8) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 : AIR 2023 SC 781 : 2023 INSC 92

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction can be exercised when the State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practices any discrimination. (Para 19) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326 : 2023 INSC 103

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging orders of Armed Forces Tribunal are maintainable - To deny the High Court to correct any error which the Armed Forces Tribunal may fall into, even in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, would be against the constitutional scheme. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2023 INSC 265

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Concept of forum conveniens - Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court, the same by itself could not have been a determinative factor compelling the High Court to keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant to decide the matter qua the impugned notification, on merit. (Para 18) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247 : 2023 INSC 229

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Guiding tests to determine whether part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court- In the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such ‘cause of action’ is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed- Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action - In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant- It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction- Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted- Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. (Para 15) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247 : 2023 INSC 229

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a challenge to an order passed by a Tribunal situated outside its jurisdiction - Supreme Court refers to larger bench. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : (2023) 5 SCC 706 : (2023) 2 SCR 59 : 2023 INSC 210

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Tax has been levied by the Government of Goa in respect of a business that the petitioning company is carrying on within the territory of Goa - Such tax is payable by the petitioning company not in respect of carrying on of any business in the territory of Sikkim- Merely because the petitioning company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, the same by itself does not form an integral part of the cause of action authorizing the petitioning company to move the High Court. (Para 16) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247 : 2023 INSC 229

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - In view of alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal before the DRAT, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226/227 allowing the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 6) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : AIR 2023 SC 306 : (2023) 1 SCR 579 : 2023 INSC 17

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament is empowered by law to create a body of legislature for the Union territories of Puducherry and J&K.- Even if the law made by Parliament creating a body of legislature for Union territories of Puducherry and J&K has the effect of amending certain parts of the Constitution, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

Article 239AA - Special provisions with respect to Delhi

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - If a democratically elected government is not given the power to control the officers, the principle of triple chain of accountability will be redundant. If the officers stop reporting to the Ministers or do not abide by their directions, the principle of collective responsibility is affected. If "services" are excluded from legislative and executive domain, the Ministers would be excluded from controlling the civil servants who are to implement the executive decisions. if the officers feel they are insulated from the control of the government, it will dilute accountability and affect governance. Thus, in a democratic form of govt, real power of administration must rest on the elected arm of the government. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881 : 2023 INSC 517

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - Legislative structure of Article 239AA excludes Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II to Schedule VII (public order, police and land) from the power of the Delhi legislative assembly. The Union of India has executive power only over these three entries.Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881 : 2023 INSC 517

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - the legislative assembly of Delhi embodies the principle of representative democracy, the Delhi assembly is given powers to legislate to represent the will of the people. Thus, Article 239AA of the Constitution must be interpreted in a manner to further the interest of representative democracy. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881 : 2023 INSC 517

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services in the National Capital, excluding matters relating to public order, police and land. The Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decision of Delhi government over services, apart from public order, police and land. If services are excluded from its legislative and executive domain, the Ministers and the Executive who are charged with formulating policies in the territory of NCTD would be excluded from controlling the civil service officers who implement such executive decisions. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881 : 2023 INSC 517

Article 243R - Composition of Municipalities

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 243R - The Constitution has imposed a restriction in terms of which nominated members who are brought in on account of their special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration do not have the right to vote- The same restriction finds statutory recognition in Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The above provisions indicate that persons who are nominated under the sub-clause shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Corporation. The Constitution and the Act place value on their experience but the right to vote is not granted to them at meetings of the Corporation. (Para 11) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : (2023) 5 SCC 414 : 2023 INSC 132

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - The Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 cannot be invalidated on the ground that is provisions are at variance from the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Since the Tamil Nadu Act has received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, there is no basis in challenging the Act on the ground that is repugnant to the RFCTLARR Act. Though the State Act did not provide fixed timelines for acquiring land as compared to the new Land Acquisition Act (a central Legislature), the same would not vitiate the State Act. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State Act stood protected after receiving the Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The whole purpose of Article 254(2) was to protect a State enactment when it ran contrary to central legislation. Individual cases involving delay in the acquisition of land under the Highways Act would have to be dealt on merits and that itself would not invalidate the Act. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413 : 2023 INSC 510

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States - the doctrine of repugnancy as such would not apply within the meaning of Article 254 of the Constitution. Although Entry 25 of List III gives powers to both the central and state legislatures to pass laws on the subject of education, it is significant to note that any such law made by the state legislature is subject to, inter alia, Entry 66 of List I. Hence, where there is a direct conflict between a state law and a union law over a matter of the coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education, such as in medical education concerning modern medicine, the state law cannot have any validity as the state legislature does not possess legislative competence. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721 : 2023 INSC 81

Article 299 - Contracts

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 299 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 11(6) and 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - Application for appointment of arbitrator - A contract entered into in the name of the President of India, does not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777 : 2023 INSC 568

Article 300A - Suits and proceedings

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Assuming holding notes is a right under the Constitution, the rights vested in the notes was not taken away - only restrictions were with respect to exchange of old notes with the new notes. [Para 277 - 278] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1 : 2023 INSC 2

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - To continue with the temporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be 9 infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Even to continue with the temporary acquisition for a longer period can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of the landowners to deal with and/or use the land. (Para 7) Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021 : 2023 INSC 61

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 - Rehabilitation scheme under Section 18 of the SICA, 1985 shall bind all the creditors including the unsecured creditors - Dues cannot be recovered post revival of sick company - Compelling unsecured creditors to accept the scaled down value of their dues would not be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the rehabilitation scheme is prepared under Section 18 of SICA, which has a binding effect on all the creditors. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208 : 2023 INSC 246

Article 309 - Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State, is one of a status. It is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued under Article 309 or its proviso. (Para 21) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042 : 2023 INSC 388

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

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 311 (2) (c) Second Proviso - Inquiry proceedings of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union Government or the State Government can be done away with if the President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry. Once it is obvious that circumstances based on materials capable of arriving at a satisfaction that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry “in the interest of the security of the State” are available, the decision in holding that it is inexpedient “in the interest of the security of the State” to hold an inquiry warrants no further scrutiny. The Court cannot, in such circumstances, judge on the expedience or inexpediency to dispense with the inquiry as it was arrived at based on the subjective satisfaction of the President based on materials. (Para 24) Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 432 : AIR 2023 SC 2391 : 2023 INSC 526

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

Article 323A – Administrative tribunals

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 323A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs. (Para 32) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : 2023 INSC 271

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 324 (2) - Appointment to the posts of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be done by the President of India on the basis of the advice tendered by a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and, in case, there is no such Leader, the Leader of the largest Party in the Opposition in the Lok Sabha having the largest numerical strength, and the Chief Justice of India. This norm will continue to hold good till a law is made by the Parliament - As regards the relief relating to putting in place a permanent Secretariat for the Election Commission of India and charging its expenditure to the Consolidated Fund of India is concerned, the Court makes a fervent appeal that the Union of India/Parliament may consider bringing in the necessary changes so that the Election Commission of India becomes truly independent. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : (2023) 6 SCC 161 : 2023 INSC 190

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 330 and 332 - Delimitation Act, 2002 - As regards providing reservation for all the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative constituencies in a Scheduled Area, the appellant cannot contend that all the constituencies in a Scheduled area should be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Reservation is required to be made in terms of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. These provisions do not provide that all the constituencies in the Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Moreover, the 2002 Act is applicable to the Scheduled Area. Therefore, even the said prayer to issue a writ of mandamus, as regards the reservation for the Scheduled Tribes, deserves to be rejected. (Para 17) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658 : 2023 INSC 512

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

Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation - There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K undertaken by the Delimitation Commission - there is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020 - There is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed - findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. We are aware that the issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending - Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving our imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 31 - 46) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951 : 2023 INSC 124

Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - All the Central and the State laws which are applicable to the entire State will continue to apply to the Scheduled Area unless, in exercise of powers under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, there is a specific notification issued by the Hon’ble Governor making a particular enactment inapplicable, either fully or partially. (Para 13 (i)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658 : 2023 INSC 512

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - The power of the Hon’ble Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule is restricted to directing that a particular law will not apply to the Scheduled Area or it will apply with such modifications as may be specified in the notification issued under subclause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule or while making Regulations in terms of sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule. (Para 13 (ii)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658 : 2023 INSC 512

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - The power of the Hon’ble Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule does not supersede the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Fundamental Rights conferred by sub-clause (e) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India on the citizens can also be exercised in relation to the Scheduled Area. (Para 13 (ii) & (iii)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658 : 2023 INSC 512

Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule

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

Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - deals with currency, coinage and legal tender; foreign exchange which is a field of legislation - Central Government has the power to initiate the process of demonetisation on the strength of Entry 36 - apart from financial health of the country Central Government is also concerned about the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country - if it thinks fit to initiate a proposal for demonetisation to eradicate black money, fake currency, terror funding etc, it should be able to do so. [Para 15.7, 15.8 and 15.9] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1 : 2023 INSC 2

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

Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 66 of List I - It is essential that uniform standards are laid down by the Parliament which are adhered to by institutions and medical colleges across the country. To this end, Entry 66 has been formulated with the objective of maintaining uniform standards in research, higher education, and technical education. Hence, state legislatures lack legislative competence in the areas of prescription of minimum standards for medical education, authority to recognise or derecognise an institution, etc. The particular qualifications for medical practitioners practising in disparate areas and in disparate fields, providing different levels of primary, secondary, or tertiary medical services, are within the mandate of expert and statutory authorities entrusted with the said mandate by the Parliament. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721 : 2023 INSC 81