Constitutional law

The distinctions between Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been clearly spelt out in the three-member Bench judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) in Radhey Shyam v Chhabi Nath. The SC, based on some survey, found that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice.

The issue whether the Governor of a State can withhold a bill passed by the legislature without acting upon it is a serious matter being debated in governmental bodies, judiciary, and the public sphere, with no consensus in sight.

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. A claim for compassionate appointment by the dependent of the deceased employee may not be entertained after a lapse of a considerable period since the death, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of West Bengal v Debabrata Tiwari & Ors.

A fundamental right, under Article 19/21 of the Constitution, can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities. This is what the Supreme Court (SC) says in a 4:1 majority judgment in Kaushal Kishor v State of UP. Justice B V Nagarathna, the sole dissenting judge, issued a dissenting judgement.

India introduced the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) Scheme by amending the Citizenship Act, 1955 in August 2005. The Scheme provides for registration as Overseas Citizen of India. A registered Overseas Citizen of India is granted multiple entry, multipurpose, life-long visa for visiting India.

The issue whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail over the State legislation/State Act has been answered emphatically by the Supreme Court (SC) once again in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. The SC categorically holds the appointment of Vice Chancellors in the state universities should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations if the regulation is in conflict with the State’s University Act.

In State Bank of India and Another v Ajay Kumar Sood, the Supreme Court (SC) set aside the judgement of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in view of the language of the judgement was incomprehensible and therefore remitted it back to the High Court to rewrite it in an easy-to-understand style.

The extent of media’s right to publish matters relating to citizens unauthorised account of life and activities, under the freedom of press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution, was considered by the Supreme Court (SC) in R. Rajagopal v State of T.N (known as Auto Shanker case).

No person can be forcefully vaccinated, even in the scenario of fast spreading Covid in the recent past. Such an exercise would violate the Fundamental Right of Life & Personal Liberty (Article 21) of such an individual under the Constitution.

The powers under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised sparingly. The exercise of such powers under the Article should be to keep the Tribunals/ subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. Under the article 227 the High Court is not expected to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is possible.

In a claim for regularisation of temporary employees in LIC in a case ( Ranbir Singh vs S.K. Roy, Chairman, LIC ) spanning four decades, the Supreme Court (SC) categorically said that a public employer such as LIC cannot be directed to carry out a mass absorption of over 11,000 workers on such flawed premises without following a recruitment process, relying on the constitutional bench judgement in Secretary, State of Karnataka v Umadevi.