Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT DECLARES SECTION 6A OF DSPE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT - NOT JUST INOPERATIVE PROSPECTIVELY - NEVER HAD ANY LEGAL STANDING SINCE ITS INTRODUCTION

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


  On 11 September 2023: In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through the legal and political spheres, the Supreme Court of India, in a unanimous ruling by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act unconstitutional with retroactive effect. This judgment is poised to redefine the contours of constitutional law and administrative action in India.

The court's observation, which is reverberating across legal circles, is as follows: "A statute declared unconstitutional by a court of law is non est for all purposes." This statement is a clear pronouncement that Section 6A of the DSPE Act is not just inoperative prospectively but has never had any legal standing since its introduction in 2003.

The judgment is underpinned by a meticulous examination of constitutional provisions, Acts, and precedents. It hinges on the interpretation of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The court clarified that Article 13(1) applies to pre-Constitution laws, rendering them void only from the date of the Constitution's commencement in 1950. However, Article 13(2) comes into play when post-Constitution laws are declared void ab initio, making them null and void from their inception.

The bench emphasized that Section 6A of the DSPE Act falls under Article 13(2), and therefore, its unconstitutionality renders it void ab initio. This means that it was never a valid legal provision since its inception on September 11, 2003.

The ramifications of this decision are profound. It affects a multitude of cases, including investigations and prosecutions conducted under Section 6A, raising questions about their validity. Legal experts predict a flurry of petitions seeking redress and review of past judgments impacted by this retrospective declaration.

Notably, the judgment has raised discussions on the applicability of this precedent to other laws declared unconstitutional by the courts. Legal scholars are closely monitoring how this decision will shape future debates on the retrospective application of constitutional declarations.

Section 6A of the DSPE Act had been a contentious provision that required prior approval from the government before investigating corruption cases involving officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above. Critics argued that it impeded effective anti-corruption measures and was susceptible to misuse.

Supreme Court's ruling on Section 6A of the DSPE Act has far-reaching implications for India's legal landscape, administrative functioning, and the pursuit of justice. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the constitution and ensuring accountability, even when reviewing legislation retrospectively.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2023

CBI vs R.R. KISHORE            

           

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/11-Sep-2023_CBI_Vs_R.R.Kishore.pdf"]

Latest Legal News