Supreme Court Quarterly Digest on Constitution of India [July - September, 2022]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Supreme Court upholds Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act, 2014 - Holds that Haryana State legislature has competence to enact the said Act - The Act does not violate the rights of Sikhs under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution - Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 782

Constitution of India, 1950 - Under the X^th Schedule of the Constitution, the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have power to deny pension and other benefits available to a former MLA while deciding a disqualification plea against him. Gyanendra Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Constitution of India - Writ of Habeas Corpus in Cases of Child's Custody - in a petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus in a matter relating to a claim for custody of a child, the principal issue which should be taken into consideration is as to whether from the facts of the case, it can be stated that the custody of the child is illegal - whether the welfare of the child requires that his present custody should be changed and the child be handed over to the care and custody of any other person - whenever a question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of the minor child, the matter is to be decided not on consideration of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the child - welfare is an all-encompassing word - It includes material welfare - while material considerations have their place they are secondary matters - more important are the stability and the security, the loving and understanding care and guidance, the warm and compassionate relationships that are essential for the full development of the child's own character, personality and talents - the employment of the writ of Habeas Corpus in child custody cases is not pursuant to, but independent of any statute - the jurisdiction exercised by the court rests in such cases on its inherent equitable powers and exerts the force of the State, as parens patriae, for the protection of its minor ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry and the result sought to be accomplished call for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity - The primary object of a Habeas Corpus petition, as applied to minor children, is to determine in whose custody the best interests of the child will probably be advanced. [Para 75, 80, 81, 86, 88, 89] Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605

Constitution of India, 1950 - Fifth Schedule - The power of the Governor is pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament and the State. The legislative power can be exercised by the Parliament or the State subject to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Thereafter, it is ultimately observed and held that the power of the Governor does not supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. It has to be exercised subject to Part III and other provisions of the Constitution. (Para 18.4) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India - 10th Schedule - Anti-defection law - Supreme Court refers to Constitution Bench questions relating to Speaker's powers for disqualification proceedings- Questions referred in dispute between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde over rift within Shiv Sena party - Prima facie doubts the law laid down in Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix versus Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697

Constitution of India, 1950 - 10th Schedule - the Speaker was not within his jurisdiction to issue directions other than those pertaining to disqualification. Gyanendra Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 2, 3, 13, 19(1)(e) - Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 - There is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State -The Reorganization Act or any guidelines framed thereunder cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country - When a State is divided and the employees and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and Regulations and by guidelines - However they have to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (Para 59-68) State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - does not prohibit the classification of persons or class of persons provided it is not arbitrary - classification has to be reasonable - classification is permissible provided it is founded on an intelligible differentia - classification must have a rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by it - whether Haj Committees under the 2002 Act, can be treated as a separate class - on the ground both HGOs and the Haj Committee render service to the same class of persons, the classification made by treating the Haj Committee as a separate class, cannot be questioned - different classes of service providers rendering the same service to the same class of service recipients does not amount to discrimination - Haj Committee is a statutory committee which is entrusted with various functions for the welfare of Haj pilgrims - profit motive is completely absent in the case of the Haj Committee - Haj Committee constitutes a class in itself when it comes to rendering service to Haj pilgrims - it is a separate class as distinguished from HGOs. [Para 56, 60] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Equal Protection of Law - Atypical families which are different from traditional family units also entitled to equal protection of law- Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts. Such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation. (Para 26) Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718

Constitution of India 1950; Article 16(3), 35 - Under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, it is the Parliament alone, which is authorized to make any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State of Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within the State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. As per Article 35 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the Parliament shall have and the Legislature of a State shall not have the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters which, under clause (3) of Article 16 may be provided for law made by Parliament. Therefore, impugned Notification/Order making 100% reservation for the local resident of the concerned Scheduled Area/Districts (reservation on the basis of resident) is ultra vires to Article 35 r/w Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India. (Para 24) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - 100% reservation is discriminatory and impermissible -quashes Jharkhand Govt notification providing 100% reservation for local residents in Scheduled Districts for Govt Posts in Class III & Class IV. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - 100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts / Areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens of non­scheduled areas / Districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. (Para 20, 23) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 - Fundamental rights under Article 19 cannot be restricted through executive instructions -citizen cannot be deprived of the said right except in accordance with law. It has further been held that the requirement of law for the purpose of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution or otherwise. [Para 43] Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 - Supreme dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Pharmacy Council of India against the judgments of certain High Courts which set aside the moratorium imposed on starting new Pharmacy colleges for 5 years. Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech and expression - Mohammed Zubair Case- Blanket bail orders to prevent the petitoner from tweeting cannot be imposed, merely because the case is based on tweets- Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech. According to the petitioner, he is a journalist who is the co-founder of a fact checking website and he uses Twitter as a medium of communication to dispel false news and misinformation in this age of morphed images, clickbait, and tailored videos. Passing an order restricting him from posting on social media would amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice his profession. [Para 30] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(d), 21 - When a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(1) (d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 17) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(g) - The right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an execution instruction. [Para 54, 55] Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15 - Appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement - Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. (Para 8) Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 21 and 300-A - Right to property had ceased to be a fundamental right. True that it is a human right as also constitutional right. Hence, compulsory acquisition by scrupulous adherence to the procedures authorised by law would not violate Article 300-A. (Para 26) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644

Constitution of India; 1950 Article 21 - A woman's right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution. She has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity. [Para 19] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Section 313 CrPC confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21. (Para 19) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Exhumation - Once buried, a body should not be disturbed - the Union Government should consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation. The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death - Family members also have a right to perform the last rites in accordance with the religious traditions. Mohammed Latif Magrey v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Personal Liberty and power of arrest - Arrest is not meant to be and must not be used as a punitive tool because it results in one of the gravest possible consequences emanating from criminal law: the loss of personal liberty. Individuals must not be punished solely on the basis of allegations, and without a fair trial. When the power to arrest is exercised without application of mind and without due regard to the law, it amounts to an abuse of power. The criminal law and its processes ought not to be instrumentalized as a tool of harassment. Section 41 of the CrPC as well as the safeguards in criminal law exist in recognition of the reality that any criminal proceeding almost inevitably involves the might of the state, with unlimited resources at its disposal, against a lone individual. [Para 27, 28] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right of Privacy - Right to be Forgotten - Right of Eraser - SC Registry directed to examine the issue and to work out how the name of both the petitioner and respondent No.1 along with address details can be masked so that they do not appear visible for any search engine. X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 618

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right to reproduction and child rearing important facets of one's right to privacy and dignity (Para 21) Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21 - Right to a fair and speedy trial is a facet of Article 21. (Para 40 -41) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Mandamus - A mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact or amend legislation - Writ petition seeking direction to amend the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 204th report - Dismissed. S. Venkatesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 752

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ petition maintainable on the ground that earlier judgment does not lay down the correct law-though the concept of finality of judgment has to be preserved, at the same time, the principle of ex debito justitiae cannot be given a go­bye. If the Court finds that the earlier judgment does not lay down a correct position of law, it is always permissible for this Court to reconsider the same and if necessary, to refer it to a larger Bench. (Para 41) HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - An order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. [Para 45] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - The accused "does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency". [Para 51, 52] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, yet it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights - mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation [Para 44, 47, 50] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - When CBI enquiry can be directed - CBI inquiry can be directed only in rare and exceptional cases -such prayer should not be granted on mere asking - though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or re- investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment - the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties - one factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies". [Para 44, 47, 50] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 142 - Clubbing of FIRs - FIRs lodged against accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Section 420 IPC etc) and other State enactments in various states - Directs clubbing of all the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible - Multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion - Scope discussed. (Para 28-37) Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Constitutional Courts can test constitutionality of legislative instruments (statute and delegated legislations) - The Courts are empowered to test both on procedure as well as substantive nature of these instruments - The test should be based on a combined reading of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution - doctrine of manifest arbitrariness. (Para 15.7 -15.8) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - In cases of concurrent findings of fact this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the said findings, in exceptional circumstances, this Court is empowered to do so. If this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse, this Court would not be powerless to reappreciate the evidence. (Para 26) Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal appeal - The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all. (Para 8) State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeals - (i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. (ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. (iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. (iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it. (v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. (Para 23) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - Whether a workman was gainfully employed or not is again a question of fact, and the finding of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court, cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court in exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 18) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in criminal appeals by special leave discussed. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave to appeal - Unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, this Court would not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (Para 75) Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 should not ordinarily be exercised to interfere with an otherwise just and reasonable order by recourse to hyper technicality upon a narrow, rigid and pedantic interpretation of the guidelines. (Para 55) State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139A - Transfer - The likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer - Decision to transfer or not, to the Supreme Court or to one High Court, has to be taken with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances - No hard and fast rule or any structured formula is provided nor appears desirable. (Para 16) Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139A - Transfer Petitions seeking transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court - Dismissed - It appears just and proper that the petitions in the jurisdictional High Courts are decided with reference to their own factual background and the law applicable. Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 141 - Precedent - A subsequent decision, in which the earlier decisions were considered and distinguished by this Court, the subsequent decision of this Court was binding upon the High Court - Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7.3) Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Court can grant appropriate relief when there is some manifest illegality or where some palpable injustice is shown to have resulted. Such a power can be traced either to Article 142 of the Constitution of India or powers inherent as guardian of the Constitution. (Para 19) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Examining Constitutional validity of legislation - There is a presumption about the constitutionality of the law made by the Parliament/State Legislature - High Court should not deal with the question of validity in a cryptic/casual manner. (Para 14-16) State of Karnataka v. B.R. Muralidhar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Execution of Arbitration awards against NHAI - If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court - We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court. (Para 6-7) National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Habeas Corpus - Child Custody - Parens patriae jurisdiction - Even while considering Habeas Corpus writ petition qua a minor, in a given case, the High Courts may direct for return of the child or decline to change the custody of the child taking into account the attending facts and circumstances. (Para 9) Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 restated. (Para 33) Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial interference in tender conditions - As per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. As per the settled position of law, the terms of the Invitation to Tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Government/tenderer/tender making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. (Para 6) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - The Statute provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the Tribunal - The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act - The question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. (Para 6-8) State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 784

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender condition of Airport Authority of India challenged by NGO - Supreme Court says NGO had no locus standi to challenge as none of the bidders challenged the conditions. (Para 5) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser, or logical. (Para 7) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - Relief under Article 226 being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled. (Para 26) State of Rajasthan v. O.P. Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 785

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The terms of employment of contract between a school and non ­teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non ­teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered by the court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition - An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public - While a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1973; Order IX Rule 13 - High Court not to entertain a revision application challenging the ex­parte judgment and decree as there was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available. (Para 6-7) Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - Tests of repugnancy - (1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by State Legislature occupy the same fieldRepugnancy may arise between two enactments even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field. (Para 32-33) All Kerala Distributors Association v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 639

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - The question of repugnancy arises only if both the Parliament and the State legislature have made law with respect to any one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent list (List III). (Para 18) Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 279A - GST Council is empowered to make recommendations to the States on any matter relating to GST. (Para 7) Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Thus, a person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law. (Para 30) Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which can be said to be subordinate legislation and cannot be said to be an Act or the Law made by the Parliament and / or State Legislature is beyond the scope and ambit of Governor's power under para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. (Para 20(3)) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 324(1), 243-K and 243-ZA(1) - The Election Commission has wide powers under Article 324(1) to issue directions necessary for conducting free and fair elections, subject to the contours of law. The power of the Election Commission includes the power to issue directions where the law is silent. The State Election Commission has the same powers under Article 243-K and 243-ZA(1) as the Election Commission of India has under Article 324(1). (Para 68) S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 366 (29A) (d) - Transfer of right to use goods "deemed sale" - principles explained. (Para 52) Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660