Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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