Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Supreme Court Declares Section 6A of DSPE Act "Void Ab Initio", Affirms Retrospective Application

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling that marks a significant shift in the judicial landscape, the Supreme Court of India today delivered a historic judgment declaring Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), unconstitutional and void ab initio, confirming its retrospective application from the date of its inception.

The five-judge bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, and J.K. Maheshwari, unanimously held that the controversial Section 6A, which mandated government approval for CBI investigations into offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act for certain high-ranking officials, was in violation of the Constitution. The bench stated, "A law declared unconstitutional is considered void ab initio, non-existent from inception, and unenforceable for all purposes."

This ruling came as a part of the criminal appeals in the case of CBI vs. R.R. Kishore, which focused on the retrospective application of a constitutional declaration in relation to Article 20 of the Constitution. The court observed, "The retrospective application of unconstitutionality applies from the statute's inception date," thereby affirming the widespread implications of the judgment for past and ongoing cases.

In its detailed examination of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, the bench clarified that this provision does not extend to procedural aspects of legal proceedings and is confined to protection against retrospective penal laws. The judgment emphasized the distinction between pre-Constitution and post-Constitution laws in the context of the doctrine of eclipse, noting that this doctrine is inapplicable to post-Constitution laws declared unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court reserved the right to mould relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the statute being declared unconstitutional. This aspect of the judgment opens the door for the court to provide equitable relief in complex legal scenarios.

Legal experts view this decision as a significant stride in reinforcing the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring that retrospective amendments or provisions do not infringe upon fundamental rights. The judgment sets a precedent for how laws, especially those concerning high-ranking officials and their accountability, are viewed and applied in India.

Date of Decision: 11th September 2023

CBI VS R.R. KISHORE                     

Latest Legal News