Legal Current Affairs for CLAT (March 2024) | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Article 136 of the COI

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors., held that while exercising its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), it can interfere with an order of acquittal if such acquittal results in a significant miscarriage of justice.

Background of the Case: State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.

• The Trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• All the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.
• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh acquitted all four accused of the charges.
• Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• The appeal was later dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

• The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, noted that the Supreme Court does not routinely interfere with orders of acquittal under Article 136 of the COI unless the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• It held that the Court must intervene in cases where:
  • The acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds.
  • The High Court’s reasoning is flawed, misled by distractions, or dismisses trial court evidence without proper evaluation.
  • The High Court’s approach results in neglecting vital evidence, thereby raising concerns within the judicial conscience and undermining justice.

What is Article 136 of the Constitution of India?

About:

• Special Leave to Appeal:Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in India. It states:
  • Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, at its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
  • Nothing in clause (1) applies to judgments, determinations, sentences, or orders passed by courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces.

Essential Characteristics:

• Grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to allow appeals from any order, judgment, decree, or sentence passed by courts or tribunals in India.
• Applicable to both final and interlocutory orders, including those from quasi-judicial authorities.
• Does not confer a right to appeal but permits an application for special leave, granting which results in the right to appeal unless revoked.
• Invoked by the Supreme Court in exceptional circumstances, particularly when a question of law of public importance arises.

Case Law:

• In Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), the Supreme Court outlined principles guiding intervention under Article 136 in acquittal cases:
• Intervention is warranted when the High Court’s reasoning is perverse, such as rejecting evidence on suspicion or undue adherence to the rule of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.
• Another basis for intervention is when acquittal results in a significant miscarriage of justice, particularly if the High Court has only superficially examined evidence, severing the connection between the accused and the crime.

Rajya Sabha Case

Why in News?

Recently, a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra ruled that the Rajya Sabha is an essential part of the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution.

• This observation was made in the case of Sita Soren v. Union of India.

Background of Sita Soren v. Union of India Case

• Core Issue:The case addressed the interpretation of parliamentary privilege within the framework of Articles 105 and 194 of the Indian Constitution.
• Allegation:A legislator was accused of accepting a bribe but not voting as allegedly agreed.
• Claim for Protection: The appellant sought immunity under Article 194(2), which the High Court rejected, citing the precedent of P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998).
• Public Importance:The case was referred to higher benches due to its significant implications.
• Ruling:While the larger bench of seven judges did not rule on the appellant’s guilt, it stressed the need to revisit the interpretation of parliamentary privilege in bribery cases.

Background of P V Narasimha Rao Case

Initiation:

• This case arose from allegations of bribery during a no-confidence motion in the Tenth Lok Sabha (1991).
• Then-Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao faced accusations of conspiring to secure votes against the motion.
• Members of the JMM and Janata Dal (Ajit Singh Group) were allegedly bribed to vote against the motion.
• The prosecution questioned the immunity of MPs under Article 105 concerning bribery charges.

Judicial Interpretations:

• Justice S P Bharucha held that MPs enjoy immunity from prosecution for their speech or vote in Parliament.
• Justice S C Agarwal, however, argued that this immunity does not extend to bribery charges.
• The central debate revolved around the interpretation of “in respect of” in Article 105(2).
• Justice Bharucha's view prevailed, affirming that MPs are immune from prosecution for actions directly related to parliamentary duties (speech and vote) but not for criminal acts like bribery.

Key Takeaway: This landmark case clarified the scope of parliamentary immunity and its limits in bribery-related criminal prosecutions.

Court’s Observations in Sita Soren Case

Rajya Sabha as Basic Structure:

• The Rajya Sabha (Council of States) plays a critical role in India’s democracy and forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Therefore, the vote of state legislative assembly members in electing Rajya Sabha members under Article 80 requires protection to ensure it is cast freely and without fear of legal repercussions.

Parliamentary Privileges:

• Protections under Articles 105 and 194—known as “parliamentary privilege”—cover various legislative responsibilities, not just law-making activities within Parliament or State Legislatures.

Revisiting Precedents:

• The doctrine of stare decisis allows larger benches to reconsider previous decisions, especially those impacting public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy.
• The interpretation of parliamentary privilege in the P V Narasimha Rao case was deemed contrary to the principles of Articles 105 and 194.

Bribery and Immunity:

• Immunity under Articles 105 and 194 cannot shield legislators involved in bribery concerning their legislative duties.
• Bribery is not essential to casting a vote or deciding how a vote is cast, making it ineligible for immunity.
• The offence of bribery is complete when the bribe is accepted, regardless of whether the agreed action (vote or speech) is performed.

Parliamentary Privileges under the Constitution

Article 105 (Privileges of MPs):

• MPs have immunity from legal proceedings for anything said or any vote cast during parliamentary sessions or committee meetings.
• The publication of parliamentary reports and proceedings is also protected.
• The powers, privileges, and immunities of each House, its members, and committees are defined by Parliament through law.
• Until defined, these privileges remain as they existed before the enactment of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978.

Article 194 (Privileges of State Legislators):

• Similar to Article 105 but applicable to State Legislatures.
• Members cannot be held accountable in court for their speech or votes within the Legislature or its committees.
• The powers, privileges, and immunities are defined by the State Legislature or existing laws until further defined.

Article 142 of the COI

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., overturned the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment and set aside the automatic stay vacation rule. The Supreme Court also issued critical guidelines on the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

Background of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Case

• 2018 Judgment:In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that stay orders in pending civil and criminal cases would automatically lapse after six months unless specifically extended.
• Reconsideration in 2023:On December 1, 2023, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court expressed the need for reconsideration of the 2018 ruling by a larger Bench.
• Recent Ruling:A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, unanimously held that stay orders do not automatically lapse. The Bench also concluded that the Court does not have the discretionary power under Article 142 to declare the automatic vacation of stay orders.

Court’s Observations

The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S. Oka, J.B. Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra made the following key observations:
Setting Aside Automatic Stay Vacation Rule:

• The Court noted the adverse impact of the automatic vacation rule on litigants.

Guidelines for Article 142 Jurisdiction:

• Complete Justice: The jurisdiction under Article 142 can be exercised to ensure complete justice between the parties before the Court.
• No Nullification of Benefits:It cannot nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on valid judicial orders, especially those who are not parties to the proceedings.
• Respect for Substantive Rights: Article 142 does not empower the Court to overlook substantive rights of litigants.
• Procedural Directions: While issuing procedural directions to streamline processes and ensure timely case disposal, the Court must not affect the substantive rights of litigants not party to the case.
• Natural Justice:The powers under Article 142 must uphold the principles of natural justice, which are fundamental to Indian jurisprudence.
• Time-Bound Schedules: Constitutional Courts should generally avoid imposing strict timelines for case disposal in other Courts, unless in exceptional circumstances.
• Prioritization of Cases: Decisions regarding prioritization of pending cases should be left to the respective Courts handling those cases.

What is Article 142 of the Constitution of India (COI)?

About Article 142:
Discretionary Power:

• Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the power to pass orders or decrees necessary for delivering complete justice in matters before it.
• Such orders are enforceable across India in the manner prescribed by law or as directed by the President until appropriate laws are enacted.

Enforcement of Orders:

• The Supreme Court has the authority to secure the attendance of persons, discovery or production of documents, or investigate/punish contempt of itself.

Objectives:

• Article 142 provides the Supreme Court with unique authority to ensure justice is served, even in situations where existing laws or statutes do not provide adequate remedies.
• It empowers the Court to resolve disputes in a manner suited to the specific circumstances of the case.

Case Laws:
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991):

• The Supreme Court held that to deliver complete justice, it could override laws enacted by Parliament or State legislatures.

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998):

• The Court clarified that Article 142 could not be used to supplant existing laws but could be used to supplement them.

Petitioners Acting in Good Faith

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court, in the case of M/S Genius Ortho Industries v. Union of India and Ors., held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), can only be exercised for petitioners who approach the court in good faith and with clean hands.

Background of the Case

• In this case, a writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court by the petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated February 27, 2023, issued by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Meerut, canceling its GST registration.
• The GST registration was canceled on the grounds that during physical verification, authorities found no business activity being carried out at the stated premises.
• Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner had suppressed material facts by not disclosing to the Court that it had obtained a new GST registration after the cancellation of the earlier registration.
• The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that Article 226 of the COI confers discretionary jurisdiction, which should be exercised only for petitioners acting in good faith.
• The Court emphasized the principle of uberrima fides, which demands that a party approaching the Court must act with utmost good faith.
• The Court observed that if this principle is violated through suppression of material facts, it breaches the trust placed by the Court in the petitioner. Consequently, the Court must dismiss such petitions without granting any relief.

Relevant Legal Provisions Involved
Principle of Uberrima Fides

• The term "uberrima fides" is a Latin phrase meaning "utmost good faith."
• It underscores the expectation that parties approaching the Court must disclose all material facts and act transparently.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Overview:

• Article 226 is part of Part V of the COI, empowering High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.
• It grants a wide jurisdiction to High Courts to protect not only fundamental rights but also legal rights.

Key Provisions:

• Article 226(1):High Courts can issue writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to enforce fundamental or other legal rights.
• Article 226(2):High Courts can issue writs to:
  • Persons or authorities within their jurisdiction.
  • Persons or authorities outside their jurisdiction if the cause of action arises wholly or partly within their territory.
• Article 226(3):High Courts must dispose of applications to vacate interim orders (like injunctions or stays) within two weeks.
• Article 226(4):The powers granted under Article 226 do not diminish the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32(2).

Types of Writs Available:

• Writ of Habeas Corpus
• Writ of Mandamus
• Writ of Certiorari
• Writ of Prohibition
• Writ of Quo Warranto

Case Laws on Article 226

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): The Supreme Court held that the scope of Article 226 is broader than Article 32, as it can also protect legal rights beyond fundamental rights.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court observed that writs under Article 226 can also be issued to enforce public responsibilities by public authorities.

Orders of Tribunals

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Kirti v. Renu Anand & Ors., held that orders passed by tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

Background of the Kirti v. Renu Anand & Ors. Case

• Filing of Application: Late Smt. Satya Rani Chopra (predecessor-in-interest of the parties) filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The application sought the cancellation of a gift deed executed in favor of the respondent concerning the third floor with roof rights of the subject property.
• Tribunal's Order:The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the application and declared the gift deed null and void for all purposes.
• Writ Petition:The respondent challenged the tribunal’s order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the COI, seeking to set aside the tribunal’s decision.
• Single Judge’s Decision: The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the tribunal’s order.
• High Court Appeal: The appellant (legal heir of late Smt. Satya Rani Chopra) subsequently filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, which was allowed by the court.

Court’s Observations

• A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that orders passed by tribunals are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the COI.
• The bench observed that an aggrieved party, depending on the nature of the relief sought, has the option to invoke either Article 226 or Article 227 of the COI to challenge the order of a tribunal such as the Maintenance Tribunal.

Relevant Legal Provisions Involved

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Legislative Background:

• Initiated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
• Aims to provide effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, as guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution, along with matters incidental thereto.

Section 23:

• Deals with circumstances under which the transfer of property becomes void.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India (COI)

• Scope and Superintendence: 
  • Enshrined under Part V of the Constitution.
  • Provides for the power of superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction.

Provisions under Article 227:

• Clause (1):Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction.
• Clause (2):Without prejudice to the above, the High Court may:
  • Call for returns from such courts;
  • Make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts;
  • Prescribe forms for maintaining books, entries, and accounts by court officers.
• Clause (3): The High Court may settle tables of fees for sheriffs, clerks, officers, attorneys, advocates, and pleaders practicing in its jurisdiction.

Proviso to Clauses (2) and (3):

• Rules, forms, or tables settled must not be inconsistent with existing laws and require the Governor’s prior approval.

Exclusion Clause:

• Article 227 does not confer superintendence powers over any court or tribunal constituted under laws relating to the Armed Forces.

Article 311 of the COI

Why in News?

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of Dr. Yogananda A v. The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Ors., recently ruled that Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, provides safeguards to government employees, including the right to a fair inquiry before any adverse action is taken against them.

Background of the Case

• The case revolves around disciplinary action taken against the petitioner by the Governing Council, which resulted in a recommendation for compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
• Consequently, the Registrar, who is the Disciplinary Authority, issued a second show-cause notice indicating the imposition of penalty, raising concerns about procedural irregularities and potential violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India (COI).
• In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, challenging the impugned order of compulsory retirement.
• The High Court, upon review, allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.

Court's Observations

• The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum highlighted that Article 311(1) of the COI provides safeguards to government employees, including the right to a fair inquiry before adverse actions are taken.
• This provision ensures protection against arbitrary deprivation of livelihood and guarantees due process.
• The Court noted that Article 311(1) underscores the necessity of providing inquiry reports to employees before initiating punitive action, ensuring procedural fairness and allowing employees to defend themselves effectively.

Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India

Key Points of Article 311:

• This Article deals with the dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.
• The protective safeguards under this Article are applicable exclusively to civil servants (public officers) and not to defense personnel.
• The protections apply to the following categories:
  • Civil service of the Union
  • All India Services
  • Civil service of any State
  • Individuals holding a civil post under the Union or any State.

Article 311(1):

• States that no government employee belonging to an all-India service or a state government shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed them.

Article 311(2):

• States that no civil servant shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank except after:
  • An inquiry informing them of the charges.
  • Being given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the charges.

Related Case Law

• In State of Punjab v. Kishan Dass (1971), the Supreme Court ruled:
  • A mere reduction in the salary of a government servant does not amount to a reduction in rank for invoking Article 311.
  • Article 311 cannot be applied for minor transactional matters.