Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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