L E G A L A D M I N I S T R A T O R April 2023 I. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari Held: Any request for alteration of date of birth cannot be made after a long delay and especially towards the end of the career of an employee. The SC also observed that proceedings questioning the caste certificate of an employee, except in the most exceptional circumstances, can not be conducted ex-parte as they pertain not only to his employment but also concerns his identity. Facts: The Appellant supplied all documents required in support of his claim as an ST candidate, and got the documents verified and approved. After being given employment to the post reserved Service Law for ST candidates however, the re -evaluation of the authenticity of the documents of the Appellant were kept pending for 19 years, in a bid to deprive him of the postretirement benefits accrued to him by way of his 38-year long service. L i n k - h t t p s : / / m a i n . s c i . g o v . i n / supr emecourt/2020 /15448/15448_ 2 0 20 _ 1 3 _ 1 5 0 1 _ 4 28 25 _J u d g e m e n t _17-Mar-2023.pdf Facts: Although the petitioner was right in that his date of birth entered correctly at the time of employment was subsequently altered by the organisation, without his knowledge, the SC held that employees cannot seek alteration of date of birth towards the fag end of their career after having slept over it for a long time. The case came up before the SC 10 days before the petitioner’s superannuation. L i n k - h t t p s : / / w w w . l i v e l a w . i n / p d f _ u p l o a d / 1 2 4 - g e n e r a l - m a n a g e r - s o u t h - e a s t e r n - c o a l f i e l d s - v - a v i n a s h - k u m a r - tiwari-17-feb-2023-460262.pdf II. R. Sundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee & Ors. Held: The right to pensionary benefit is a constitutional right and cannot be taken away without proper justification. The exercise of verification of community certificate must be completed expeditiously. Issue No.- 2
III. Government of Tamil Nadu And Anr Etc. v. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Ors Etc. Constitution but it is ordinarily not to be interfered unless that is attached with legal or factual malice of the Government. L i n k - h t t p s : / / m a i n . s c i . g o v . i n / su pr em ec ou r t/20 1 4/297 16 /297 1 6 _2 0 1 4_5 _1501 _43 428_J u dgem en t_1 1 -Apr-2023.pdf The direction of the High Court to reinstate after creating the posts under the designation “Village Level Workers” and absorb the respondents based on their qualification was struck down as it was not sustainable in law. Facts: The case pertained to reinstatement and regularisation of employees who had served as Village Level Workers in the State of Tamil Nadu. Analysis of Law: The SC reiterated the settled law that the Courts cannot direct the creation of posts and absorb the persons who are continuing in service of the State in absence of sanctioned post. The employees were not appointed against a cadre post; they were appointed under a scheme and were paid honorarium. The Court noted that the employees were not entitled to reinstatement and for regularisation of service beyond the term of the scheme. While the policy decision of the Government is always open to judicial review on the anvil of Article 14 of the Held: In absence of sanctioned posts, the State cannot be compelled to create the post and absorb the persons who are continuing in service of the State. Corporation in packaging under the agreement. The whole meal wheat atta was found to be nonconforming to the specifications and a Show Cause Notice was issued. The Corporation's notice was completely silent about blacklisting and as such, it could not have led the appellant to infer that such an action could be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of this notice. Had the Corporation expressed its mind in the show-cause notice to blacklist, the appellant could have filed a suitable reply for the same. Analysis of the Law: A prior show -cause notice granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all administrative decisionmaking and particularly so in decisions pertaining to blacklisting which entail grave consequences for the entity being blacklisted. In these cases, furnishing of a valid show-cause notice is critical and a failure to do so would be fatal to any order of blacklisting pursuant thereto. A clear legal position emerges that for a show-cause notice to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, such notice must spell out clearly, or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom, that there is intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist the noticee. Such a clear notice is essential for ensuring that the person against whom the penalty of blacklisting is intended to be imposed, has an adequate, informed and meaningful opportunity to show cause against his possible blacklisting. The mere existence of a clause in the bid document, IV. M/s. Coromandel Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd v. The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (Andhra Pradesh HC) Held: The HC quashed the impugned order of penalty and blacklisting by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice of granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. It is settled law that in view of the severity of the effects of blacklisting, there is a resultant need of strict observance of principles of natural justice. Facts: The petitioner supplied whole meal wheat atta to the
which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the showcause notice. Link - https:/pdf_upload/ displayphp-467937.pdf It would be immaterial whether the services required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from general revenues, from a local fund or from the funds of a Body incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government. Facts: The SC considered the question whether persons employed as Supervisors, are entitled or not, during the time they were Central Government servants to Double Over Time Allowance in terms of Section 59 (1) of the Factories Act 1948? Analysis of the Law: There are three different categories of employment; (i) employment which is statutorily protected under labour welfare legislations, so as to prevent exploitation and unfair labour practices; (ii) employment which falls outside the purview of the labour welfare legislations and hence, governed solely by the terms of the contract; and (iii) employment of persons to civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State. Persons in category (iii), i.e., public officers who are holders of civil posts or are in the civil services of the Union or the State are required to place themselves at the disposal of the Government all the time. 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.Workers covered by Factories Act do not earned, KPTCL argued that on the day when the increment actually accrued to the employees, they were not in service. Analysis of the Law: Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for a valid reason. The only reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out from the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which increment is earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a year’s service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out for it. Link-https://main.sci.gov.in/ supremecourt/2020/8117/8117_202 V. The Director (Admn & HR) KPTCL & Others v. CP Mundinamani & ors Held: Merely because, the government servant has retired on the very next day, he cannot be denied the annual increment which he has earned and/or is entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct and efficiently in the preceding one year. A government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Therefore, the moment a government servant has rendered service for a specified period with good conduct, in a time scale, he is entitled to the annual increment. Facts: The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (KPTCL) denied annual increment to employees on the ground that they had retired the next day after it became due. Relying on Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997, which state that an increment accrues from the day following that on which it is VI. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc v. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc. Held: Rule 11 of the Fundamental Rules and the Supplementary Rules (FRSR) 1922 affirmed. Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him, and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim for additional remuneration.
VIII. Pramod Singla v. UOI & Ors. Held: The impugned detention order was set aside as the detenue was supplied with illegible documents in Chinese, and the authorities had relied upon the very same documents to detain the appellant, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution, wherein the detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention and must provide the material in support of the same and in the language understood by the detenue. enjoy the benefit of automatic wage revision through periodic Pay Commissions like those in Government service. Persons holding civil posts or in the civil services of the State enjoy certain privileges and hence, the claim made for Double Over Time Allowance should be seen in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds. Link- http://scourtapp.nic.in/ supremecourt/2018/45815/45815_ 2018_15_1501_43678_Judgement_ 18-Apr-2023.pdf Every procedural rigidity, must be followed in entirety by the Government in cases of preventive detention, where the detenue is held in arrest not for a crime he has committed, but for a potential crime he may commit, and the Courts must always give every benefit of doubt in favour of the detenue, and even the slightest of errors in procedural compliances must result in favour of the detenue. Facts: The appellant was detained under COFEPOSA by the DRI for gold smuggling with foreign nationals into India. The appellant-detenue, availing his rights sent representations to the detaining authority and the Government, and both were rejected. The mandate to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board, would apply to the central Government, and hence the delay of 60 days is not enough to quash the order of detention. However, the detaining authority, being independent of the Government, can pass its decision without the decision of the Advisory Board. Constitution they have done in service could not be ignored. The petitioners alleged that the Defence Ministry was equating the women officers seeking promotion in 2023 with their male counterparts, though the latter were considered in 2012. The women officers were not considered at that point of time because of the non-grant of permanent commission, and now the Defence Ministry was freezing their ACRs with respect to the year 2011 and ignoring the ACRs rendered till 2023. The Court stated that it appears ex facie that there has been an attempt to go around its order and took this very seriously by stating that a notice of contempt would be issued if the subsequent work profile of the women officers was ignored whilst considering them for promotion. VII. Nitisha v. Union of India: Held: The SC expressed its displeasure over the alleged action of the Defence Ministry in not following its judgement in Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India (wherein it was held that the criteria for grant of permanent commission to women officers, although facially neutral, were, in effect, indirectly discriminatory) and The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (wherein it was held that the Indian Army's erstwhile policy of absolutely excluding women officers from receiving permanent commission was illegal). Facts: The SC had earlier held that the up-to-date service profile of the women officers had to be considered for promotion and the subsequent good work
X. In re: News item published in Newspaper The Hindu dated 07.03.2023 titled “Three children die during illegal mining in West Bengal”: NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL Held: Though the primary liability is of the violator of the law, where law violator is not made to pay compensation, the State has also been held to be liable to pay compensation as per its duty as welfare State to protect the citizen and also for failure to take steps to protect the citizens against hazardous illegal activities to prevent which is duty of the State. norms and enforcement of the right to environment which is part of right to life, heirs of the deceased and the victims have been held entitled to compensation on the principle of absolute liability arising out of doing hazardous commercial activity, and this falls on the violaters of the Law. In the present case, death of the children is patently due to violation of established norms. The State Authorities failed to enforce the law and prevent the incident. Apart from illegal engagement of children, the mining in the river bank is not shown to be by any authority of Law, such as, mining lease, replenishment study, DSR and Environment Clearance. No safeguards have been used in the process. Thus, the State cannot escape liability for violation of environmental norms. The NGT directed payment of compensation @ ₹20 Lakh each to the heirs. Link- https:// greentribunal.gov.in/ gen_pdf_test. Environmental Law IX. G.S. Bansal v. State of Punjab & Ors Held: The National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, has directed the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board (RJSPCB) and the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) to commission a joint study by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi or the Indian Toxicological Research Institute (ITRI), Lucknow. Facts: The study is aimed at finding out the root causes of increasing cancer patients in both the States as suggested in the report of the Joint Committee constituted by the NGT. On completion of the study, copies of the study report shall be sent by the Member Secretary, RSPCB to the Chief Secretaries of Government of Rajasthan and Punjab respectively who shall take appropriate measures in accordance with the observations/recommendations in the study report, as may be required in time bound manner. Link-https:/ pdf_upload/1680784251343327143 642ebb7b02a8d-467656.pdf Facts: Proceedings were initiated suo motu on a media report of about death of three children during illegal mining in West Bengal on 07.03.2023, who were crushed to death while loading illegally mined sand on truck on the bed of the river Balason. They were hired for illegal loading activities on promise of being paid ₹350/- each per truck. Analysis of the Law: In cases of deaths and injuries to victims by failure to follow environmental
XII. Robkar v. Vivek Bhardwaj & Ors Held:The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to initiate contempt action against officials of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) for exclusion of AYUSH doctors from performance based incentives offered to MBBS doctors. the increment of Rs.10,000/ per month was provided. Analysis of the Law: The Court observed that the question whether respondents were justified in granting performance -based incentive in favour of MBBS doctors, keeping in view the nature of additional duties that they are performing, was obviously neither raised before the Apex Court in 2014 nor was it adjudicated upon by the said Court. Since the Govt had complied with the direction of the Apex Court in its letter and spirit as the question with regard to justification for granting performance-based incentive to MBBS doctors was neither an issue before the Apex Court nor any direction in this regard was issued in the judgment, the contempt proceedings were closed. It is settled law that the power of contempt is of a special nature and the contempt jurisdiction has to be confined to the question whether there has been a XI. Krishna Das K V v. State of Kerala: NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL: Held: For gross failure of the State in overseeing remedial measures by its Departments/ Authorities, NGT directed the State of Kerela to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Crores on Polluter Pays principle, and deposit it in ring-fenced account, operated under the Authority of Chief Secretary, Kerala. The above amount of Rs. 10 Crores be utilized for c o n s e r v a t i o n / r e s t o r a t i o n measures by preparing an action plan to be preferably executed within six months. It will be open to the Chief Secretary to collect the amount from erring officers/ departments/ industries/ individuals in accordance with law by an appropriate mechanism and hold erring o f f i c e r s a p p r o p r i a t e l y accountable departmentally or by way of prosecution and also to proceed against other entities, railways, local bodies and industries. Facts: There was a failure of the statutory and administrative authorities in the State of Kerala to take remedial action for protecting Ashtamudi wetland and Vambanad-kol wetland, which are Ramsar sites (protected under Ramsar Convention) in Kollam district of Kerala. The said wetlands have become polluted drains of the city due to dumping of pharmaceutical waste, plastic waste, domestic waste, slaughter -house waste and innumerous other sources. Analysis of the Law: The State failed in its mandatory duty of protecting wetlands which are Ramsar sites in spite of binding orders of the SC in Paryavaran Suraksha case & M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The State cannot plead helplessness in implementing guaranteed rights of the citizens and also in taking stringent measures for protection of environment and public health. The compensation was directed for the gross failure of the State in overseeing remedial measures by its Departments/Authorities. Link- https:// greentribunal.gov.in/gen_pdf Contempt of Court Facts: In 2014 the HC had issued a direction through a 2012 notification prescribing enhanced remuneration of Rs. 25,000 to MBBS doctors to be extended to AYUSH doctors as well. In a subsequent 2021 notification, remuneration of both classes of doctors was revised to Rs. 35,000/ per month. However, MBBS Medical Officers were given Rs.15,000/ per month as a special performance-based incentive with an increment of Rs.5,000/ whereas, AYUSH Medical Officers,
deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and the court should not go into the questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by an applicant. Thus, a Court cannot go beyond the original judgment while exercising its contempt jurisdiction. The Court cannot issue additional or incidental directions if these are not found in the original judgment. Link- https:pdf_upload/display43-18-467905.pdf Land Acquisition Facts: The Supreme Court, by an elaborate reasoning, had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/- per acre in 2012, which was reduced by the HC to Rs. 4,15,000/- per acre in 2015. An SLP against this order was dismissed in limine by the SC. A fresh SLP on additional grounds was filed. Analysis of the Law: The State itself had filed applications before the High Court for withdrawal of nine appeals arising out of acquisition under the same notification. The Court held that the State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. Link-https://www.livelaw.in/ pdf_upload/312-shivappa-v-chief -engineer-11-apr-2023- 468949.pdf XIII. Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. The Chief Engineer and ors: CA 2694--2700 of 2023 Held: (i) If the State has accepted the award of the Supreme Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude shows patent discrimination. (ii) The dismissal of the SLP in limine does not amount to affirmation of the view taken by the High Court. Unless the judgment of the High Court is affirmed, at least, with short reasoning, the same would not amount to binding precedent.
Facts: The UOI submitted a comprehensive note containing an updated status of the initiatives which have been taken by the Union Government for the incorporation of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) initiatives in regard to revenue litigation. On 14 November 2022, the SC had directed that the Union Government must take all expeditious steps to ensure that filing by the Union Government of all appeals and proceedings before the High Courts as well as the Revenue Tribunals, including the CESTAT and the ITAT should take place in the e-filing mode. The High-Powered Committee shall accordingly proceed to take necessary steps to achieve the above goal so that e-filing can be made universal within a period of three months where the Government is in appeal. Miscellaneous Facts: A dismissed state government employee working as a Jailor filed a thinly disguised PIL seeking among other action against a current employee of the state government, a Superintendent of Jail, on account of his alleged corrupt activities. The PIL sought prayers such as a high-level inquiry conducted by some independent agency, into the affairs of the jails in the State of Uttar Pradesh including the District Jail, Moradabad concerning the alleged inhuman conditions of the prisoners in the jails. The HC found that these XVI. C.C.E. & S.T., Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd Held: The Union of India shall ensure that the entire filing of revenue appeals before the High Courts and the Tribunals is carried out in the e-filing mode. XV. Seema Girija & Anr. v. UoI & Ors. Held: Notice was issued by the SC on 24 April, 2023 to the following States and UTs who have not formulated rules under Section 101 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, namely: Andhra Pradesh; Chattisgarh; Maharashtra; and Union Territory of Ladakh. In addition, notice was also issued to the following States/ Union Territories who have not constituted District Level Committees under Section 72 of the Act: Andhra Pradesh; Kerala; Union Territory of Chandigarh; Union Territory of Dadar and Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu; Union Territory of Ladakh; and Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Analysis of the Law: Section 72 of the 2016 Act mandates the State Government to constitute District level Committees on disability, to perform such functions as may be prescribed by it. Section 101 empowers the State governments to frame rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act, including the functions of the district level committees, and without the formulation of specific rules, such committees would remain ineffective. Public Interest Litigation XVI. Reevan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Administration And Reform Services Govt. U.P. Lko. And Ors Held: Before entertaining a public interest litigation plea concerning corruption by a public servant, the Court needs to be satisfied first with the bonafides of the person approaching the Court.
prayers had been made in this disguised public interest litigation petition for wreaking vengeance against the Public Servant and thus dismissed the PIL. The Allahabad HC dismissed the contention of the Petitioner that he should be taken seriously as he is a 'whistle blower' as per Section 11(2) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 and has been victimised which has resulted in his dismissal. Link-https:/pdf_upload/reevansingh-vs-state-of-up-thru-prinsecy-jail-administration-andreform-services-govt-up-lko-and -ors-criminal-writ-publicinterest-litigation-no-1-of-2023- allahabad-high-court-468694.pdf Facts: The convict, a SubRegistrar at Kannivadi, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu had allegedly demanded gratification of Rs.500/- for handing over the registered sale deed in circa 2004. A successful trap was laid, but during the trial later on, the complainant turned hostile. The shadow witness in the examination-in-chief did not say that the appellant made a specific demand of gratification in his presence to the complainant. Analysis of the Law: To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. It is not a simple XVII. Soundarajan v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul: Held: Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved. Prevention of Corruption Act XVIII. Miriyala Vajiram v. State of AP Held: Section 3 of the POCSO Act, defining ‘penetrative sexual assault’ was examined by the Court, and held that ejaculation of semen is not a necessary prerequisite for the purpose of proving penetrative sexual assault. demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused. In the absence of circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification in the facts of the case, the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 not proved. Link-https://main.sci.gov.in/ supremecourt/2019/23646/23646_ 2019_17_1501_43590_Judgement_ 17-Apr-2023.pdf Protection of Children from Sexual Offences 376(2)(i) of IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years based upon the victim, her mother and the Doctor’s testimony. Analysis of the Law: Even without ejaculation of semen, if the evidence on record shows that there is penetration of penis or any object or part of the body of the accused into the vagina of the minor girl, it is sufficient to constitute an offence of penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3 of the POCSO Act. Even the same definition is given to the offence under Section 375 of IPC also, the HC noted and upheld the conviction and sentence. Facts: A 06-year-old girl was assaulted, and the medical examination revealed bleeding and torn hymen although no semen was found. The accused was convicted under POCSO r/w Section
Facts: Asharam, a self-styled Godman was convicted and sentenced to RI under POCSO Act, IPC, JJ Act in 2018, and filed an application under Sec 391 of CrPC praying for the summoning and recording of evidence of Ajay Pal Lamba, who was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police (West), Jodhpur, Rajasthan in August 2013 and has written a book “Gunning For The Godman: The True Story Behind Asaram Bapu’s Conviction”. The Rajasthan HC by its impugned judgement allowed the same. Analysis of the Law: Sections 311 and 391 of the Cr.P.C. relate to power of the court to take additional evidence; the former at the stage of trial and before the XIX. State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal Held: The SC rejected the summoning and recording of evidence of Ajay Pal Lamba, who was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police, as an attempt to re-open the entire case and seek reexamination of these witnesses at the appellate stage and delay the hearing of the Criminal appeal which is ripe for hearing. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences judgment is pronounced; and the latter at the appellate stage after judgment by the trial court has been pronounced. The touchstone of when the additional evidence at the appellate stage may be taken on record is not the impossibility or inability to pronounce the judgment in its absence, but whether there would be a failure of justice without such additional evidence. This discretion is not to be exercised lightly but requires caution and care as it is to be exercised only in cases when the appellate court finds, on good and justifiable grounds, that there would be a failure of justice without the additional evidence being taken on record.
Rules of Business months period preceding the elections. The State Government directed RIICO to annul the approvals provided to Respondent No.1 and accordingly RIICO issued orders to cancel the permission for conversion of land and also for cancellation of supplementary leases subsisting in the name of Respondent. The Respondent No. 1 opposed the impugned action by contending that failure to abide by the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India, leads to invalidation of the government decision. The matters relating to RIICO are handled by the Industries Department and the Minister for Industries would be the nodal authority for finalizing such decisions. Since the Minister for Industries was neither included in the Cabinet Committee, nor involved while taking the final decision, his absence vitiates the decision of canceling the lease and subdivision of Land. The High Court quashed the decision of the Cabinet Committee and the steps taken by RIICO to cancel the allotment to Respondent. Analysis of the Law: The entire Cabinet was called to scrutinize various decisions taken by RIICO during the previous regime. The Cabinet, which included the Minister for Industries, decided to constitute three subcommittees to investigate the alleged irregularities, along with an interdepartmental committee. The Minister for Industries is not expected to look into each individual matter pertaining to RIICO as this would render the entire working of government unviable. The Minister of Industries was not, at any point, missing from the overall decision to review the actions taken by RIICO and to take necessary steps thereafter. The cabinet subcommittee was merely acting on behalf of the entire Council of Ministers, when carrying out the exhaustive fact-finding enquiries. The Rules of Business also advocates for collective governance by the Council of Ministers in terms of recommendations made to the Governor. Accordingly, the Bench held that the Council was collectively involved in the decision to set up subcommittees for revisiting the decisions taken by the prior government, including with respect to actions by RIICO. It was a collective decision of the Council of Ministers to constitute the Committees to look into irregularities of various kinds. The specific committee that was authorized to investigate RIICO and its alleged misuse of nonexistent powers in favour of Respondent No. 1, was a creation of the entire Council, including the Minister for Industries. The subcommittee’s actions in this context were completely validated and backed by the Minister and the rest of the Council. It is, thus, difficult to hold that Rules of Business have not been followed by the State Government in the course of its decision-making process. XXI. The Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: Held: There was no violation of the Rajasthan Rules of Business as the sub-committee which recommended the cancellation of the permissions/approvals to the Respondent, was acting for and on behalf of the entire Council of Ministers. The overall objective of ensuring that governance is carried out in a convenient and efficient manner is important. Rule 7 of the Rules of Business embodies this spirit as well, in that it advocates for collective governance by the Council of Ministers in terms of recommendations made to the Governor. Facts: State of Rajasthan allotted land on leasehold basis to the Respondent No.1 who thereafter submitted a proposal for change of use of leased Land from industrial to commercial and to subdivide the Land which was granted by RIICO in 2018. After the change of government, the newly elected Council of Ministers constituted a Cabinet Committee to review decisions of the previous ruling government, which were taken during the 6
In the instant case, the respondents by not providing a reasoned order denying the renewal of license, not disclosing the relevant material, and by disclosing the material only to the court in a sealed cover have violated the appellant’s right to a fair hearing protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondents were unable to prove that the restrictions on the appellants’ right to a fair hearing were reasonable (Para 159). The court under Article 13 of the Constitution has the power to declare ‘laws’ that violate/ inconsistent with fundamental rights to be void. For the purpose of the provision, ‘law’ includes administrative action. The position of law that administrative action infringing fundamental freedoms has to be tested on the proportionality standard (Para 164). Facts: The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting revoked the permission which it had granted to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) to uplink and downlink a news and current affairs television channel called “Media One” on the basis of intelligence inputs, which were “sensitive and secret in nature”. UOI further submitted that MHA could not disclose reasons for the denial “as a matter of policy and in the interest of national security”. The Kerela HC relied on material which was disclosed solely to the Court in a sealed XXII. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India & Ors. Held: The SC clarified and laid down the law on the applicability of the principles of natural justice when issues of national security are involved. The Court must choose between the two visions of either permitting a complete abrogation of the principles of natural justice or attempting to balance the principles of natural justice with concerns of national security. The State must satisfy the Court that firstly, national security is involved; and secondly, whether on the facts of the case, the requirements of national security outweigh the duty of fairness. At this stage, the court must make its decision based on the component of natural justice that is sought to be abrogated. The courts must review the assessment of the State to the extent of determining whether it has proved through cogent material that the actions of the aggrieved person fall within the principles established above. Natural Justice vis-à-vis National Security Concerns cover by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and dismissed the plea of MBL on the grounds that principles of natural justice are not applicable in matters concerning national security and that the scope of judicial review in matters involving national security is limited. The High Court declined to disclose the contents of the files to the petitioners. Analysis of the Law: The principles of natural justice were read into the law and conduct of judicial and administrative proceedings with an aim of securing fairness and seek to realise the following four momentous purposes: Fair Outcome, Inherent value in fair procedure, Legitimacy of the decision and decision making authority, and the Dignity of individuals. It is a settled position of law that an administrative action can be challenged on the ground of a violation of fundamental rights under Art 13. Administrative action is judicially reviewable on the grounds of (i) unreasonableness or irrationality; (ii) illegality; and (iii) procedural impropriety. The SC has also held that in addition to the above grounds, administrative action can be reviewed on the ground of proportionality if it affects freedoms that are guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The doctrine of proportionality envisages that the least restrictive means for
restraining fundamental rights ought to be used. The proportionality standard as laid down by the SC is as follows: (i) The measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage). (ii) The measure must be a suitable means for furthering this goal (suitability or rational connection stage). (iii) The measure must be least restrictive and equally effective (necessity stage). (iv) The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder (balancing stage) The claim of public interest immunity allows the State to remove the material from the proceedings on the ground that its disclosure would injure public interest. All three parties to the proceeding, that is, the applicant, the state, and the court cannot refer to or rely on the documents for substantive hearings in the course of the proceedings if the court allows the public interest immunity claim at the discovery stage. In effect, the public interest immunity claim renders the relevant document non-existent for the purposes of the proceedings. LEGAL MAXIM De Minimis Non Curat Lex – The law does not concern itself with trifles {small or insignificant things/matters}. A common law principle whereby judges will not sit in judgement of extremely minor transgressions (offences, wrongdoings) of the law. This maxim is recognized under Sec 95 IPC, which states that Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes/intends to cause/ likely to cause any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW XXV. Isolators and Isolators Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330 HELD: The debarment and penalty order was quashed as SCN was issued only for debarment and nothing was indicated about the proposed imposition of penalty. The requirement of a specific showcause notice is settled Law per UMC Technologies Private Limited vs Food Corporation of India & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 551. Facts: Due to a default on the part of the appellant in supply of the contracted transformers, the order was cancelled and an order was passed debarring the Appellant from participating in future tenders of MPMKVVCL (DISCOM) for a period of three years and imposed a penalty. MP HC upheld both actions. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT XXVI. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v Charulata Sahu & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262 HELD: Order XXII Rule 3: When a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties and must be a complete agreement. In a suit for partition of joint property, a decree by consent amongst only some of the parties cannot be maintained. Effect of 2005 amendment to pending partition suit: As the law governing the parties has been amended before the conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the party benefitted by such amendment (like the two daughters in the instant case) can make a request to the Trial Court to take cognizance of the Amendment and give effect to the same. Facts: The Settlement Deed was executed between only 2 siblings in respect of the joint property coowned by three siblings. The Bench held that the settlement deed is unlawful for being without the written consent of ‘all’ the parties. In a suit for partition of joint property, a decree by consent amongst only some of the parties cannot be maintained.
NATIONAL CENTRE FOR LAW AND ADMINISTRATION Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration Mussoorie—248 179 (Uttarakhand) EPABX : +91-135-222-2000 | Website : https://www.lbsnaa.gov.in NCLA Activities 1. Inauguration of National Centre for Law & Administration: The National Law Center For Law and Administration(NCLA) was inaugurated by Hon’ble Former President of India Shri Ram Nath Kovind in the august presence of Hon’ble Governor of Uttarakhand Lt. Gen. Gurmit Singh & Sh. Srinivas R. Katikithala, Director on 16th day of April, 2023. This Center has been established with the objective of sharpening the legal acumen of civil servants, help raise competencies among them and facilitate focused legal education about various statutes and judicial pronouncements. 2. First LBSNAA Moot Court Competition: The 1st Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration Moot Court Competition was organized from 27th -28th April, 2023 by the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA) under the aegis of the National Centre for Law and Administration . It was a first-of its kind Moot Court Competition among the Officer Trainees in IAS Professional Training Phase-I course. The Moot Court Competition was organized with the aim to develop analytical skills, critical thinking, presence of mind, teamwork, public speaking skills, and time management in the Officer Trainees. With 59 teams in 15 Court Rooms, the competition was modulated into a teaching tool to help the OTs understand the nuances of law in a practical manner. 3. Constitutional Law seminar on ‘Republican Ethic: Through the eye of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’ was delivered by Hon'ble Former President Shri Ram Nath Kovind on 16 April, 2023 as a part of “Vidhan aur Samvidhaan ''. Addressing the faculty, officer trainees of IAS Professional Course Phase 1 and other dignitaries, Hon'ble Former President highlighted the contribution of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in drafting of our Constitution. 4. Quiz on Constitution and the life of Dr. Ambedkar was conducted by NCLA on the occasion of the birth anniversary of Dr. B. R Ambedkar on 14th April, 2023. The quiz witnessed participation of 23 teams and the questions were based on the life & work of Dr. Ambedkar .