Constitutional law

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.

The decision which is pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the court as it is at the time of pronouncement. The mode or manner of delivery is unimportant but it must be done in a judicial way in open court. It must be an expression of the mind of the court at the time of delivery. That is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the court performs after the hearing.

In 2004, the Supreme Court (SC) in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v Union of India [(2004) 6 SCC 254] held that a High Court can pass an order in regard to the constitutionality of a Law of Parliament, it will have effect in the entire territory of India, where the law is applicable. In the above case, the Division Bench of the SC held that an order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, whether interim or final, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject to the applicability of the Act.