Skip to main content

Chandra Kumar vs. UOI - Manav Puri@LexCliq

 Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India - Manav Puri@LexCliq


Introduction;

There was much controversy as to the constitutionality of Sections 323A and 323B, as the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction over official matters was considered to be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Numerous cases have been dealt with on the question of basic structure. The powers and position of administrative courts, the scope of judicial review, but instead of solving those problems, these cases have raised those problems. 


Facts of Case; 

Pursuant to Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution, the five-chamber Central Administrative Court was established on November 1, 1985, as well as the Supreme Court, which questions the constitutional validity of Article 323A as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution as it gives jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 32 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution. the Constitution.

The Court also agreed that while the power of judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution, which has been described as the heart and soul of the Constitution, can additionally be conferred on another court, there is no reason why it should not should be the case in the case of the powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to do so. However, it is necessary that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 be maintained and that the courts act as a supplementary body.

Although the tribunals have not lived up to expectations, it would be unsatisfactory to attribute these problems to the fundamental principles of their institution and to regard them as unsound. The reasons for the establishment of the tribunals still stand and have recently become clearer.

However, it ruled that the jurisdiction of the courts would be subject to review by the High Court under Articles 226/227.This would serve two purposes; First, it will ensure that unfounded claims are filtered through the court's decision-making process, and second, the Supreme Court will not lose its judicial review powers. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts constituted under Article 323A Article 323B of the Constitution have the power to examine the constitutional validity of any statutory provision or rule subject to Supreme Court review.

Given the unprecedented increase in litigation, there is a need to give courts additional powers of judicial review. In this situation the judgement in Sampat Kumar’s case was right as it adopted the theory of alternative institutional mechanism in the cases before the High Court.

Throughout the judgment the Court pointed out that the courts do not replace the High Court but complement it. In addition, they suggested the following changes;

  • They will function as a supplementary body and all decisions of the courts will be subject to scrutiny by a divisional chamber of the respective high courts. 


  • The requirement that the appointment of administrative members to administrative courts should cease is not acceptable as a reasonable combination of judicial members and persons with background experience would be better suited to achieve fast and efficient enforcement. 


  • In order to eliminate the inefficiency of the courts, the courts should be subject to the oversight authority of the High Court. 


  • The ministry can appoint an independent supervisory body to oversee the operation of the courts. 



Conclusion;

Ratio Decidendi of the Case; 

  • The power of judicial review of legislative acts, conferred on the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 respectively, is the basic structure of the Constitution. 


  • The power of judicial supervision over the decisions of all courts within its jurisdiction is the basic structure of the constitution. 


  • Judicial scrutiny of the legislative process in the exercise of power by the lower judiciary or courts established by common law cannot exclude the Superior Courts and the Supreme Court. However, they can play a complementary rather than a substitute role in this regard.


  • Courts constituted under Sections 323A and 323B have the power to hear matters of subsidiary legislation, except for matters of their original statute. All of their decisions would be reviewed under Articles 226/227 before the Trial Chambers of their respective High Courts. Under Article 136, no appeal would go directly to the Supreme Court. This directorate would work prospectively. 


  • There is no need to stop appointing directors. 


  • Until the establishment of an independent body for the object of looking over the regulation of the Tribunals is pending, all such Tribunals will be under single ministry or body whose members would significantly be the Ministry of Law.


Author Name – Manav Puri@LexCliq


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of Non-