Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 - Constitution Of India

Constitution of IndiaArticle 8 - The Court clarified that when a person acquires a foreign citizenship, the cessation of Indian citizenship happens by operation of law by virtue of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Hence, such cessation of citizenship cannot be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, children of such persons cannot seek to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. As per Section 8(2), children of persons who have voluntarily renounced Indian citizenship can seek Indian citizenship within one year of attaining majority. The Court interpreted that this option is not available for children of those who acquired foreign citizenship. The Court also clarified that a person who was born outside India after the commencement of the Constitution cannot seek citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution on the ground that his grandparents were born in the undivided India. The Court held that allowing such an interpretation would lead to "absurd results", as foreign nationals born long after the independence, by claiming that their grandparents were born in the undivided India. Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 816Article 12 and 13 - The Army Welfare Education Society cannot be considered as "State" under Article 13 of the Constitution. The High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents herein holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the school run by the Appellant Society imparts education. Imparting education involves public duty and therefore a public law element could also be said to be involved. However, the relationship between the respondents herein and the appellant society is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract. If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element. The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents. (Para 42) Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 464Article 12 and 226 – Maintainability of Writ Petition – 'State' or 'Other Authority' – The respondent employer, Air India Limited (AIL) after its disinvestment ceased to be a State or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India – The writ petitions were maintainable on the date of institution but whether they continued to be maintainable as on the date the same were finally heard? – Held, the issue about exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would arise only on the date when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration and decision. The subsequent event of disinvestment of the Government Company and its devolution into a private company would make the company immune from being subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even if the litigant had entered the portals of the Court while the employer was the Government. (Para 5, 32 & 38) R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 384Article 12 and 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High Court – The High Court has the power to issue the directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and Prohibition to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government within its territorial jurisdiction for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution of India and for any other purpose. Held, since, respondent employer (AIL) had been disinvested and had assumed the character of a private entity not performing any public function, the High Court could not have exercised the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to such private entity. (Para 34 & 38) R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 384Article 13 – Scope of Judicial Review in matters of economic policy – Courts must adopt a less stringent form of judicial review while adjudicating challenges to legislation and executive action which relate to economic policy as compared to laws relating to civil rights such as the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion. The amendment to Section 31 of the RBI Act can be classified as a financial provision to the extent that it seeks to introduce a new form of a bearer banking instrument. However, any resemblance to an economic policy ends there. The amendments in question can be clubbed into two heads: first, provisions mandating non-disclosure of information on electoral financing; and second, provisions permitting unlimited corporate funding to political parties. Both these amendments relate to the electoral process. The Bonds were introduced only to curb black money in the electoral process, and protect informational privacy of financial contributors to political parties. The Union of India has itself classified the amendments as an...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 - Constitution Of India

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags