Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

NO FURTHER EXTENSION TO DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT: SUPREME COURT

04 September 2024 10:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment reaffirming the separation of powers and the authority of judicial pronouncements. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, has restrained the government from granting any further extensions to the Director of Enforcement beyond the specified tenure.

Highlighting the sanctity of a writ of mandamus issued by the Court, the judgment stated, "Nullification of mandamus by an enactment would be impermissible legislative exercise." The Court further emphasized that the legislature cannot override individual decisions inter partes and affect their rights and liabilities alone, as it would amount to an intrusion into the judicial power of the state.

The judgment comes in response to writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021. Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the impugned Acts and rules were not violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Citing previous precedents, the Court underscored that while the legislature can change the basis of a decision and modify the law in general, it cannot nullify a specific mandamus issued by the Court. The Court also acknowledged the concern expressed by the Union of India regarding the FATF review and the need for a smooth transition, allowing the current Director of Enforcement to continue in office until 31st July 2023.

This judgment sets a significant precedent, upholding the authority of the judiciary and ensuring the adherence to the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law. It reaffirms the importance of judicial review and prevents legislative encroachment on individual rights and liabilities.

Date of Decision: July 11, 2023

DR. JAYA THAKUR  vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 

Latest Legal News