15.
Case Note:
Constitution - Maintainability - Applications were filed by Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and
Delhi Bar Association for award of compensation to persons who had suffered harm on account
of escape of oleum gas from plants of Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries - However, as
issues raised involved substantial questions of law relating to interpretation of Articles 21 and 32
of Constitution, case was referred to larger Bench of five Judges - Hence, this Appeal - Whether,
under Article 32 Applications for compensation sought could be maintained - Held, under Article
32(1), Court was free to devise any procedure appropriate for particular purpose of proceeding -
However, power of Court was not only injunctive in ambit, that is, preventing infringement of
fundamental right, but was also remedial in scope and provided relief against breach of
fundamental right already committed - Thus, Court had power to grant such remedial relief and
could include power to award compensation in appropriate cases - Hence, it was unjust to person
whose fundamental right was violated, to require him to go to Civil Court for claiming
compensation - Appeal disposed of.
M.C. Mehta and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (20.12.1986 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0092/1986
16.
Labour and Industrial - bonus - Section 10 (1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - demand for
bonus - matter referred to Tribunal under Section 10 (1) (d) and rejected - nature of bonus (as in
instant case) not covered by Act of 1965 - reference specifically spoke of payment of such bonus
by employers which had become 'custom or usage or condition of service' in establishment -
Tribunal bound to investigate said question and terms of reference for being operational basis of
its jurisdiction - claim of customary bonus cannot be discarded merely because occasion for its
announcement was not specified - in instant case bonus was based on custom and service
conditions and not on profit as required for applicability of Act of 1965 - said Act therefore
cannot be said to have barred different species of claim merely for using word 'bonus' for such
claims.
The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Ors. (10.03.1976 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0313/1976
17.
Constitution - fundamental right - Articles 14, 19, 21, 32, 37, 39 and 41 of Constitution of India
and Sections 312, 313 and 314 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - petition seeking
direction against Government Order regarding demolition of dwelling units of petitioners -
petitioners contended that provisions of Act of 1888 specially Section 314 ultra vires
Constitution of India - Section 314 empowered Municipal Commissioner to cause to be removed
encroachments on footpaths or pavements over which public have right of passage of access
without notice to affected persons - Court observed that Section 314 cannot be read to mean that
Commissioner must cause removal of encroachment without issuing previous notice - Section
314 or other provisions of Act of 1888 held not to be unreasonable or violative of Article 21 as
no person has right to encroach on footpaths pavements or other place reserved for public
purpose by erecting structure on it - State Government assured Court that alternative would be
provided to slum dwellers who were caused to be evicted - Ordered accordingly.
Olga Tellis and Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. (10.07.1985 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0039/1985
18.
Case Note:
Environment - Applicability of statute - Determination of power - Scheduled Tribes and other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - Central Empowered
Committee (CEC) had objected to grant of clearance sought by Parent Company/Vedanta from
Respondent/Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) on ground that Refinery would be
totally dependent on Bauxite Mining - Hence, this Writ Petition - Whether Respondent was
justified in making decision on application forest clearance for Bauxite Mining for Refinery
project - Held, 2006 Act has been enacted conferring powers on Gram Sabha constituted under
Act to protect community resources, individual rights, cultural and religious rights - Further, Act
also states that recognized rights of forest dwelling STs and other TFDs include responsibilities
and authority for sustainable use, conservation of bio-diversity and maintenance of ecological
balance and thereby strengthening conservation regime of forests while ensuring livelihood and
food security of forest dwelling STs and other TFDs - Furthermore, forest rights on ancestral
lands and their habitat were not adequately recognized in consolidation of State forests during
colonial period as well as in independent India resulting in historical injustice to them who were
integral to very survival and sustainability of forest ecosystem - Moreover, Section 6 of 2006 Act
confers powers on Gram Sabha to determine nature and extent of "individual" or "community
rights" - However, said matter had not been placed before Gram Sabha for their active
consideration but only individual claims and community claims received from Rayagada and
Kalahandi Districts most of which Gram Sabha had dealt with and settled - Hence, State of
Orissa was directed to place these issues before Gram Sabha then Gram Sabha should
communicate its finding to Respondent on basis of which it should take a final decision on grant
of stage II clearance for Bauxite Mining project - Writ Petition disposed off
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors. (18.04.2013 -
SC) : MANU/SC/0396/2013
19.
Case Note:
Constitution - gender justice - Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 2 of
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - petition for preservation and enforcement of right to
gender equality and fundamental rights of working women - Court framed various guidelines
including disciplinary action, complaint mechanism and complaints committee - Court directed
that guidelines and norms would be strictly observed in all work places for preservation and
enforcement of right to gender equality of working women.
Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (13.08.1997 - SC) : MANU/SC/0786/1997
20.
The workers voluntarily contracted to perform the service which was sought to be compelled and
there was therefore no violation of the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment. The wage shall
be paid by the contractors to the workmen directly without the intervention of the jamadars and
that the jamadars shall not be entitled to deduct or recover, any amount from the minimum wage
payable to the workmen as and by way of commission or otherwise
People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (18.09.1982 -
SC) : MANU/SC/0038/1982
21.
Case Note:
Environment - Limestone quarry - Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, made an allegation
related to unauthorized and illegal mining operations carried on in Mussoorie Hills and area
around adversely affecting ecology to environmental disturbances - Hence, this Petition - Held,
at present Valley was in danger because of erratic, irrational and uncontrolled quarrying of
limestone Green cover about 10 per cent of area while from decades ago it was almost 70 per
cent - Moreover, 105 mining leases and various reports indicated that direct environmental
impact on area and limestone deposits of high grade having up to 99.8 calcium carbonate -
digging and blasting of limestone allowing waste to roll down had affected villages as also
agricultural lands located below hills and disturbed entire ecology of area and traffic hazard for
local population -Therefore, it was appreciation steps taken by Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra for Preservation of environment - Appeal disposed of.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
(18.12.1986 - SC) : MANU/SC/0111/1986
22.
23&24.
Case Note:
(i) Constitution - lease - Section 3 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land transfer
Regulation, 1959, Sections 2 and 3 (2) of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Section 3 of
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - appeals
directed to resolve mutually inconsistent law adumbrated by Division Benches of Andhra
Pradesh High Court - one Division Bench held that Regulation and Mining Act of 1957 does not
prohibit grant of mining leases of Government land in Scheduled area to non tribals - another
Division Bench in earlier point of time had take diametrically opposite view and held that mining
lease illegal - State Government granted mining leases in Scheduled areas to several non tribal
persons - whether Regulation would apply to transfer of Government land to non-tribals -
transfer of immovable property between member of Scheduled Tribes to non-Scheduled Tribe
member null and void - non-tribal transferee acquired no right, title and interest in that behalf in
furtherance of such sale.
(ii) Transfer of right - whether lease constituted transfer - Section 105 defines 'lease' as transfer
of right to enjoy immovable property for certain period for consideration of price paid or
promised to transferor on such terms and conditions - lease creates right or interest in enjoyment
to remain in possession for duration of lease unless it is determined in accordance with contract
or statute.
(iii) Regulation - whether grant of mining lease in Scheduled Areas is outside purview of
Regulation - word 'person' would include State Government and transfer of land in Scheduled
Area for mining purposes in favour of non-tribals stands prohibited - non-tribals have transferred
their lease hold interest in favour of respondent companies.
(iv) Prior permission - whether leases are in violation of Forest Conservation Act or Environment
Protection Act - object of Forest Conservation Act is to prevent any further deforestation which
causes ecological imbalance and leads to environment degradation - it is necessary for State
Government to obtain prior permission of Central Government - before granting leases State
Government obliged to obtain concurrence of Central Government.
Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Ors. (11.07.1997 - SC) : MANU/SC/1325/1997
25.
Case Note:
Constitution - Jurisdiction - Articles 202 to 207 of Constitution - High Court held that work of
construction of road was taken up in patches and noted requirements for completion of road
and/or to make same serviceable and people of area were denied benefit of use of road in
contiguous length - Hence, this Petition - Whether, High Court had power to issue prerogative
writs to direct State Government in matters which according to Government, were exclusive
domain of legislature as contained in Articles 202 to 207 of Constitution - Held, society had
constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication to residents of hilly areas as far as
feasible and possible - However, directions of Court could not run counter to specific provisions
of Constitution - Court could not direct State Government to spend beyond sanctioned amount
which was in domain of legislature in view of provisions of Articles 202 to 207 of Constitution -
There was slow application of energy in action by executive and High Court could by judicial
review cautiously activate or energise executive action - Court had directed 'to favourably
consider demand for additional funds', which was enough - High Court had served its high
purpose of drawing attention to public need and indicated feasible course of action - Thus, High
Court had not transgressed jurisdiction of supervising executive action in view of time taken to
construct road - Petition disposed of.
State of Himachal Pradesh vs Umed Ram
26 &27.and 28
Case Note:
Constitution of India--Article 226--Doctrine of Colourable legislation--Judicial review--Once the
statute is held to be within the legislative competence of the Legislature, it can be set aside only
if it violates any of the provisions of Part III or other provisions of the Constitution--It cannot be
struck down on the ground of colourable exercise of power or mala fide on the part of
Legislature--Motive for legislation is beyond the scope of Judicial review under Article 226--
Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (Kerala Act
12 of 1999).
Appellant/State challenged decision of the High Court of Kerala by which it declared certain
provisions of Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes
Act, 1999, void and unconstitutional. The Judgment proceeded on the basic premise that the
statute was meant to neutralise an earlier decision of the High Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the High Court should not have struck down various provisions of the Act after finding
that the Act is within legislative competence of the State Legislature. In the light of such a
finding, an Act can be struck down only if it violates any of the provisions of part III or other
provision of the Constitution. Apex Court further held that no motive can be attributed to the
Legislature for enacting a statute and motive of the Legislature cannot be examined under Article
226. It was further held that violation of Article 14 would arise only where a person is divested
of his vested right without paying compensation to him and since the Act provided for payment
of compensation, it does not violate Article 14. Apex Court also held that if the latter statute
completely wipes out the earlier statute, the first statute will not revive even if the second statute
is struck down as unconstitutional. Allowing the appeal, the Court;
Held:
The High Court, in our opinion, again with utmost respect, has committed a fundamental error in
failing to keep a distinction in mind in regard to the power of a law making authority which is of
a qualified character and the power granted to a legislative authority which is absolutely without
any limitation and restriction, being plenary in character. A statute in view of the decision of this
Court in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.'s case (supra), in the event of it being held within the
ambit of the legislative competence of the State, could be declared ultra vires only on the
premise that it is violative of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India or any other
provisions but not on the ground of colourable exercise of power or mala fide on the part of the
Legislature. The object, purpose or design referred to by the High Court should be taken into
consideration for the purpose of examining its constitutionality on the touchstone of the
provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India and not otherwise. The question, in our opinion,
should have been whether the statute is valid having been enacted to achieve the constitutional
goal set out not only in Part III of the Constitution of India but also Part IV and IVA thereof.
(Paragraph 12)
Constitution of India--Article 14--A person can be divested of the vested right acquired by him
only after paying compensation to him--If such vested right has not been taken away, Article 14
is not infringed.
Held:
No territory in the State of Kerala has been declared as Scheduled Area within the meaning of
Article 244 read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The decisions of this Court,
therefore, are clear and unambiguous. In a case involving members of the Scheduled Tribe living
in Scheduled Area the period of limitation can be extended, but it is not permissible in respect of
an area which has not been declared to be a Scheduled Area. When a person acquires an
indefeasible right, he can be deprived therefrom only by taking recourse to the doctrine of
Eminent Domain. If a person is sought to be deprived of an indefeasible right acquired by him,
he should be paid an amount of compensation. In a case of this nature, therefore, where an
amount of compensation has not actually been tendered, the vendees of the land could not be
deprived of their right to be dispossessed. In that view of the matter, a distinction must be made
between a case where an amount of compensation has been paid and in a case where it has not
been. If a vested right has not been taken away, the question of applicability of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India would not arise. The High Court, however, proceeded to apply Article 14 of
the Constitution of India on the premise that the provisions of the 1999 Act clearly seek to
destroy the right conferred on Scheduled Area by Act 31 of 1975. The approach of the High
Court being not correct, the same cannot be sustained. (Paragraph 15)
General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act 10 of 1897)-- Sections 6 & 7--Revival of earlier statute--
If the latter statute completely wipes out the earlier statute, the first statute will not revive even if
the second statute is struck down as unconstitutional.
Held:
Repeal of a statute, it is well-known, is not a matter of mere form but one of substance. It,
however, depends upon the intention of the legislature. If by reason of a subsequent statute, the
Legislature intended to abrogate or wipe off the former enactment, wholly or in part, then it
would be a case of total or pro tanto repeal. If the intention was merely to modify the former
enactment by engrafting an exception or granting an exemption, or by adding conditions, or by
restricting, intercepting or suspending its operation, such modification would not amount to a
repeal. In Southern Petrochemical Industries' case (supra), the subsequent Act did not contain the
words "unless a different intention appears". It was held that the later Act was not different from
the earlier Act. This Court is required to assume that the Legislature did so deliberately.
(Paragraph 20)
State of Kerala and Ors. vs. Peoples Union for civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit and Ors.
(21.07.2009 - SC) : MANU/SC/1302/2009
29.
Case Note:
Environment - River - Water pollution - Articles 32, 21 of Constitution - Present petition is under
Article 32 of Constitution for issue of direction to stop forthwith discharge of slurry/sludge from
industrial plant of respondent into Bokaro River - Whether petitioner has made out a case for
grant of direction as prayed - Held, Article 32 is designed for enforcement of fundamental rights
of a citizen by Supreme Court - It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard
fundamental rights of a citizen - Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
Constitution and it includes right of enjoyment of pollution free water - If anything endangers or
impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32
of Constitution for removing the pollution of water - Person invoking jurisdiction under Article
32 must approach for vindication of fundamental rights of affected persons -Present petition has
been filed not in any public interest - Materials on record shows that petitioner filed present
petition for personal interest - Petition dismissed.
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (09.01.1991 - SC) : MANU/SC/0106/1991
30.
Case Note:
Constitution of India - Article 32--Environment and ecosystem--Whether functioning of
Kudremukh Iron and Ore Co. Ltd. (KIOCL) has adverse effect--Certain directions issued in 2002
in (2002) 10 SCC 606 -- Unfortunately Central Government for reasons best known to it
notwithstanding clear position indicated in judgment construed expression "Committee" as
"Forest Advisory Committee" -- Hence, keeping in view suggestions and recommendations of
I.I.T. founded on rational basis, certain directions issued
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (15.12.2006 - SC) :
MANU/SC/8777/2006
