A constitutional authority cannot do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly. [Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors v/s State Of Bihar & Ors]

Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors 

Before Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 20 December 1986

Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. (CJ), Misra Rangnath, Oza, G.L. (J), Dutt, M.M. (J), Singh, K.N. (J)

Author: P Bhagwati, Justice.

Advocates for the Petitioners: Soli J. Sorabji, J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, T.N. Ansari, Joel Pares, S. Sukumaran and Dr. Chandrachud.

Advocates for the Respondents: L.N. Sinha, Jai Narain, P.P. Singh, D. Goburdhan and Ms. S. Relan

(more…)

Continue Reading

The modern state is expected to engage in all the activities necessary for the promotion of the social and economic welfare of the community: SC [Case Brief]

The modern state is expected to engage in all the activities necessary for the promotion of the social and economic welfare of the community: Supreme Court

The federal structure of the largest democracy of the world functions through three organs: Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. The doctrine of separation of powers lays down that all the three functions of these organs are different and are not to be transgressed. However, this does not mean that the executive does not have the law making power.  A balance, thus, is required to be sought in order to prevent the abuse of power exercised by these organs of the state.

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. Vs The state of Punjab

Before Supreme Court of India

Delivered on: 12 April 1955

Bench: Chief Justice Mukherjea, Justice V Bose, Justice Jagannadhadas, Justice V Ayyar, Justice Imam.

Author of the Judgement: Chief Justice Mukherjea

(more…)

Continue Reading

There is a thin line of difference between Administrative Acts and Quasi-Judicial Acts: SC [Case Brief]

The powers between the Union and the state government has been distributed under Part XI of the Indian Constitution. These powers are further classified into Legislative, Administrative and Judicial powers. An administrative law, as defined under Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edn., is “An act made in a management capacity esp., an act made outside the actor’s usual field (as when a judge supervises court personnel). An Administrative Act is often subject to greater risk of liability than act within the actor’s usual field.” 

While a Quasi-Judicial Act clearly suggests that there must be two or more contending parties and an outside authority to decide those disputes.Thus a presence of lis or two rival parties is must in order to hold the statutory authority as quasi- judicial body.Thus there is a very thin line of difference between both. In circumstances where there are no two rival parties, it is a judicial procedure which is required to be followed in Quasi-Judicial acts and not in Administrative acts.

A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union of India & Ors

Before Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 29 April 1969

Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (CJ.), Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha, hedge, K.S., Grover, A.N.

Author of the judgement: Justice Hegde

Advocates for petitioners:

  • K. Sen and E.C. Agrawala (in W.P. No. 173 of 1967)
  • Frank Anthony, E.C. Agrawala and A.T.M. Sampat (in W.P.No. 174 of 1967)
  • K. Daphtary, E.C. Agrawala, A.T.M. Sampat, S.R. Agarwala and Champat Rai (in W.P.No. 175 of 1967)

Advocates for Respondent:

  • Niren De, Attorney-General, N.S. Bindra and R.N. Sachthey ( For respondents no. 1 to 6) (in all petitions)
  • R. Gokhale and Harbans Singh (For Respondent Nos. 7 and 26) (in all petitions)

(more…)

Continue Reading

[Case Brief] Lily Thomas v/s. Union of India.

Background of the Case

The issue of criminality in politics or precisely convicted representative in Parliament and legislature has been debated for a long time and several reforms have been proposed by different forums (Election Commission of India, Supreme Court etc.). Similarly with the parliamentary election had to be conducted in 2014, the Supreme Court came up with three landmark judgments[1] one of them was the constitutionality of Section 8 (4) of RPA, which influenced the conduct of the election.

The two writ petition Lily Thomas v. Union of India[2] and S.N. Shukla v. Union of India[3] was filed as Public Interest Litigation primarily with the objective to declare Section 8 (4), RPA, as ultra vires the constitution.

The provision of the RPA outlines that convicted representative can file an appeal and consequently this will put stay on their conviction, Lily Thomas said thereby “it encourages tainted leaders to contest elections. This should never have been permitted”.[4] This was her reason for filing this petition. Her objective was, the Court to be held in high esteem and declaration of the clause as illegal.[5]Lok Prahari, a Lucknow-based NGO, through its general secretary, had also filed a petition on the identical bearing so both the petitions were adjudicated together.[6]

(more…)

Continue Reading

[Case Brief] State Bank of India v/s. Santosh Kumar Gupta & Anr.

The constitution of India ensures that there is uniform rule over the entire Union of India. But in order to ensure that the cultural identities, customs, economic and political interests of the certain regions are protected, these regions are governed with special provisions. One such region is the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the instant judgement, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution of India is superior to the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

STATE BANK OF INDIA v. SANTOSH GUPTA & ANR 

Before the Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal Nos.: 12237-12238 of 2016 [Arising Out Of SLP (C) Nos.30884-30885 of 2015] along with batch of appeals.

Bench: Kurian Joseph & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Decided on: 16/12/2016

Relevant Provisions:

1. Section 140, Transfer of Property Act of Jammu And Kashmir,
2. Section 13, 17, 34, 35, SARFAESI Act.
3. Article 370 and 35A Constitution of India.
4. List 1 of Seventh Schedule – Entry 45 and 95.

List 3 of Seventh Schedule – Entry  6 and 11A.

(more…)

Continue Reading
  • 1
  • 2
Close Menu