Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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