Case Laws

Mid Sem
Rule of Law

1. SG Jaisinghani v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1427)- “the absence of

arbitrariness is the first essential of ROL on which the whole constitional system is
based”

2. Keshavananda Bharati v. Union of India (1973)- ROL is part of the basic

structure.

3. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1982 SC 1325)- ROL permeates the entire
fabric of the constitution.

Separation of Powers

4. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)- Separation of Powers is part of the basic
structure. 39th amendment struck down.

5. Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2012)- CIC performs judicial functions so should
compose of judges because they have judicial mind.

6. State of UP v. Jeet Singh Bisht (2007) 6 SCC 586- Case of judiciary directing the
state government to maintain state commissions. Held that the courts should
maintain self-restrain and not encroach upon the functioning of the legislature and
executive.

7. State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery (AIR 1997 SC 1511)- The judiciary must
recognise the fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process and
must accord it due regard and deference.

8. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1955 SC 549)- Sepration of Powers
in India is not absolutely rigid but recognises sufficient differentiation. Therefore,
assumption of powers of one branch by another is not contemplated by the
Constitution.

Delegated Legislation

Case Laws 1
 9. KT Plantation Pvt Ltd v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1- DL does not need to
follow PNJ in the absence of any statutory requirements.

10. BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333- Policy matters
are beyond the scope of JR, unless there is a violation of COI or enabling Act or
otherwise illegal.

11. Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd (1987) 2 SCC 720- Parliament itself may
provide for notice for hearing, etc. This is a concession which does not detract the
nature of the activity as being quasi-legislative rather than quasi-judicial. MSP is QL.

Pure Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Action

12. R v. Electricity Commissioners (1923)- Quasi-judicial = Legal Authority +

Affecting Rights + Duty to Act judicially + Acting in excess would invite controlling
jurisdiction

13. Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S Advani (AIR 1950 SC 222)- Two tests. First
test is where there are three parties, the parties to lis and the authority to determine
it. Second test there are only two parties, the party and the statutory authority which
can prejudice the subject.

14. AK Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262- Difference between PAA and
QJA slowly obliterating. To determine the difference, one must look to “the nature of
the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the framework
of the law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing from the exercise of
that power and the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised.” Duty
to act judicially supplemented with duty to act fairly. PAA with and without Civil
Consequences.

15. State of Orissa v. Binapeni Dei (1967) 2 SCR 625- Shah uses the term ‘civil
consequences’

16. Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC (1978 2 SCR 625)- “Civil consequences cover
infractions not merely of property or personal right but also of civil liberties, material
deprivations and non-pecuniary damages.

17. Mangalam Organics Ltd v Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 221- If public authority
foisted with any duty to do an act and fails to discharge the function, mandamus can
be issued against it. Also differentiates between PAA and DL. DL cannot be struck
down on unreasonableness unless it is evidence of mala fide.

Case Laws 2
 Administrative Discretion

18. RD Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628)- AD is

inalienable part of AA.

19. Angad Das v. Union of India (2010) 3 SCC 463- Discretionary power is not
inherent but is provided by the enabling Act.

20. Clariant International Limited v. SEBI (AIR 2004 SC 4236)- DP should be

exercised keeping in mind the purpose, objectives, reasons, parameters, and the
four corners of the statutes.

21. Muni Suvrat Swami Jain Sangh v. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad (AIR 2007 SC 38)-
Exercise of DP is subject to JR only on two grounds: failure to exercise, or abuse of
the DP.

22. State of UP v. Renu Sagar Power Corporation (1988) 13 SC 143- DP may or may
not be delegated depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. But JR
cannot be used to make the AA exercise the discretion in a particular way.

Failure to Exercise DP

23. Padfield v. Ministry of Agriculture (1968)- Non Application of Mind- Minister failed
to take into consideration the scheme of the Act.

24. State of Punjab v. Hari Krishna Sharma (AIR 1966 SC 1081)- Surrender of DP to
higher authority- when the enabling act does not allow it.

25. Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gobardhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16)-

Acting under the dictation of superior authorities. Comm had the power to decide to
allow cinema to be constructed but he exercised the power on the dictation of the
government.

Abuse of DP (Unreasonable, Ultra vires, Mala fide)

26. Associated Provincial Pictures v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)- Three

pronged test.

Administrative Tribunals.

27. Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles (AIR 1963 SC 874)- Attirbutes of
tribunals: trappings of court, constituted by state, invested with state’s inherent
judicial powers.

Case Laws 3
 28. SP Sampat Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 386)- Differentiated between
Court and tribunal based on: Composition, Power, Procedures, Enforcement of
Final Award.

29. L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)- Struck down Article 323A(2)(d) which
ousted the jurisdiction of HCs.

30. State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta (AIR 1967 SC 884)- Concept of Post.
Appointment-Remuneration-Control/Supervision-Dispose.

31. H Mukherjee v. SK Bhargava (1996)- Harrasment is not related terms of service

and hence not within the jurisdiction of CAT.

32. Duryodhan Sahoo v. JK Mishra (AIR 1999 SC 114)- AT cannot maintain PIL, only
“aggrieved person” holding a civil post can.

End Sem
Delegated Legislation
1. Queen v. Burrah (1879)- Garo jurisdiction removal may be extended to Khasi and
Jaintia. Two interpretations. Either all subordinate legislation allowed or only CL
allowed.

2. Re: Delhi Laws Case (1951)- Essential legislative functions cannot be delegated.
Repealing laws are invalid. Modifying laws should not modify legislative policy.

3. State of Tamil Nadu v. K Sabanayagam (1998)- CL has no element of legislative

power and hence no excessive delegation.

4. Harishanka Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1954)- Power to bypass any

other enactment or legislation is not repealing or modifying. Valid.

5. Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India (1960)- Wide powers to add any disease
to the schedule are uncontrolled and uncanalised.

Judicial Review
1. Dr Bonham Case, Coke CJ- "When an Act of Parliament is against common right
or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will

Case Laws 4
 controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void". But Coke later declared that the
powers of the parliament are transcendent and unbound.

2. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. AK Chopra (1999)- Not concerned with

correctness of findings, just that the findings are supported by evidence
Examination of the decision making process.

3. Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain (2007)- Legality, and not the
wisdom or soundness of the policy, is subject to judicial review. Cannot be annulled
on the ground that a better decision was available.

4. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374-
Grounds for JR of AA

Illegality: Ultra Vires

Lack of Jurisdiction

i. Rafiq Khan v. UP (1954)- Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 did not give power to
sub-divisional magistrate to modify order of conviction and sentence. Could
either quash or cancel jurisdiction.

ii. R v. Minister of Transport (1934)- Minister did not have power to revoke
license granted by traffic commissioners. Although a person refused license
could appeal to the minister.

Excess of Jurisdiction

i. R v. Richmond upon Thames Council ex parte McCarthy & Stone Ltd

(1992)- Scheme of charging 25 pounds for consultation between
corporation officers and property developers. Held unlawful, no statutory
authority.

Abuse of Jurisdiction

i. Attorney General v. Fulham Corporation (1921)- Authority empowered to

establish washhouses for non-commercial services established commercial
laundry services. Ultra vires the statute.

ii. Syed Yakoob v. KS Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477)- If the tribunal

does not follow (something similar to Wednesbury principles), it is error
apparent on the face of record.

Case Laws 5
 iii. R v. Somerset Country Council, ex p Fewings (1995)- Law allowed the
government to manage or acquire land for “benefit, improvement or
development of their area” but banned stag hunting based on ethical
considerations. Non-relevant consideration, ultra vires.

iv. R v. Derbyshire County Council, ex p Times Supplements (1991)-

Council decided to stop posting vacancy ads in a paper critical of them.
Duty to advertise vacancies in a manner likely to bring it to the notice of
persons who are qualified. Bad faith.

Failure to exercise Jurisdiction

Irrationality

i. Chintaman Rao v. State of MP (1951)- Deputy commissioner imposed a total

ban on manufacture of bidis when he had to fix the agricultural season and
prohibit the manufacture of bidis in notified areas. “Reasonable restriction”
means it cannot be arbitrary. Proper balance needs to be struck. (Many say it is
the first proportionality case).

ii. Wednesbury

Procedural impropriety: process

i. Naraindas Indurkhya v State of MP (1974)- Consultation with the chair of the

education board would amount to consultation with the board.

ii. District Collector v. Chittor District Groundnut Traders Association (1989)-

State Government to make necessary orders with prior permission of central
govt, held not needed (?)

iii. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)- Procedural fairness required irrespective of type of

body determining a question.

Proportionality: Misconduct and punishment

i. R v. Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Trader’s Ferry Ltd

(1999)- Adopted the proportionality standard, said it produces the same results
as Wednesbury.

ii. R (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Dept (2001)- Movement away
from Wednesbury to proportionality duly noted.

Case Laws 6
 iii. Hind Construction and Engineering Co Ltd v. Workmen (1965)- Workers
treated a day as holiday, dismissed. Industrial tribunal held the action as
disproportional, could have been treated it as leave without pay.

iv. Management K Tea Estates v. Mazdoor Sangh (2004)- Workers armed with
deadly weapons gheraoed the manager to demand a bonus. Punishment of
dismissal proportionate to the misconduct.

v. Sardar Singh v. Union of India (1992)- A jawan bought 11 bottles of rum when
he was entitled only to 4 from the canteen. Made to undergo 3 months of
rigorous imprisonment and dismissed from service. Punishment held too
severe.

vi. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987)- Soldier ordered to eat his food, did not
do so. One year imprisonment. Very disproportionate punishment.

vii. Union of India v. Ganayutham (1997)- Witholding 50% pension and gratuity
too severe for offence of misconduct by excise official causing substantial loss
government revenue.

viii. Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)- Proportionality has three elements:

a. Means adopted by authority should rationally fit the legislative purpose.

b. Authority should not injure the individual more than necessary.

c. The injury cause should not be disproportional to the benefit which accrues
to the general public.

ix. Modern Dental College v. MP (2016)- Four pronged test:

a. Measure to be designated for a proper purpose.

b. Measure to be rationally connected to its fulfilment.

c. No less invasive measure exists.

d. A proper relationship between the importance of achieving the aim and the
importance of limiting the right.

Legitimate Expectation: Unilateral promise

i. Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969)- Denning evolved the
term “reasonable expectation”.

Case Laws 7
 ii. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (1985)- Diplock
substituted “reasonable” with “legitimate”

iii. Ram Pravesh v. State of Bihar (2007)- LE not a legal right. Expectations
should be based on reasonable, logical, and valid; not based on sporadic,
casual, or random acts.

iv. Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. Tamil Nadu (1994)- LE gives
sufficient locus standi for judicial review.

v. JP Bansal v. Rajasthan (2003)- Chairman of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal lost

his job before his tenure expired as the government abolished the tribunal. As
per LE, bound to pay compensation.

Doctrine of Public Accountability

1. Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Reid (1993)- Bribe accepted by a fiduciary in
breach of duty is held as trust, officer cannot ebenfit from it.

2. Attorney General of India v. Amratlal Prajivandass (1994)- SAFEMA Act

providing forfeiture of properties earned by smuggling, held in the offender's name
or others, held valid.

3. DDA v. Skipper Construction (1996)- Even in the absence of a fiduciary

relationship (where no public officer was involved), acquisition of property by fraud
would lead to its restoration. In India, courts are not only courts of law but also of
equity.

4. Kerala v. Thressia (1994)- If a public servant causes loss to public exchequer,

government can recover loss personally.

5. Nilabati Behera v. Orissa (1993)- Enforceable right to compensation for violation of

FR.

6. Common Cause (Petrol Pumps matter) v. Union of India (1996)- No damages in

PIL, no plaintiff. Minister by virtue of election not in a position of trust.

RTI
1. UP v. Raj Narain (1973)- Right to know denied from 19(1)(a).

2. SP Gupta v. President (1981)- Right to know is part of FOE.

Case Laws 8
 3. CPIO v. SC Aggarwal (2019)- SC is a public authority.

4. Khanapuram Gondaiah v. Admin Officer (2010)- RTI cannot be used to know the
thoughts of the judge while giving the order as it does not constitute “record”.
Opinion.

5. CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011)- Examination authorities have to provide

answer sheets to candidates, RTI to be interpreted expansively.

6. ICAI v. Shaunak Satya (2011)- Cannot bar disclosure of question papers, model
answers, instructions, etc. after the conduct of examinations.

7. Girish Deshpande v. CIC (2012)- Records related to performance of employees

usually protected under section 8(1)(j).

8. UOI v. Vishwas Bhamlurkar (2013)- Thorough attempt should be made to search

and locate information. Loss of record if discovered be rectified and punished.

PNJ
1. Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008)- The test as to when a person should be
communicated info is to see if he is being prejudiced by it. NJ facet of 14.

2. UP v. VK Tripathi (1994)- PNJ must be read into law unless excluded by explicitly
or by necessary implication (??)

3. Saij Ram v. Gram Panchayat- Law did not provide for hearing before transfer of
land. PNJ needs to be read into the statute and service rules.

4. HL Trehan v. UOI (1989)- Even when authority has power to take action without
hearing, it would be arbitrary to take action without hearing. Therefore, violative of
14.

5. SBI v. KP Naryanan Kutty (2003)- Read PNJ into service rules.

6. Sunil Batra- After Maneka and Cooper we have substantive due process.

7. Mohd Arif v. SC- Substantive due process is there. Oral hearing of review petition
in death penalty.

8. Puttuswamy- Fairness (substantive due process) applies to legislation as well.

Audi Alteram Partem

Case Laws 9
 6. R v. Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy- Justice should not only be done but seen to
be done.

7. Bhagwant Singh v. Commr of Police (1985)- Administrative difficulty in giving

notice not an excuse to preclude hearing.

8. Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985)- Even if legislation provide for AA without hearing,
authority cannot violate principle of fair hearing unless nothing unfair can be
inferred.

9. UP v. Vam Organic Chemicals (2010)- Reasons for the action are preconditions
for issuing notice.

10. Jospeh Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (1978)- Proposed action to be taken

needs to be specified in Notice. Case of blacklisting without informing in the notice.

11. Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. UOI (1997)- To a large class of educated persons, notice can
be inferred by publication in newspaper. Individual notice not required.

12. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT (1995)- Right to evidence against. Supply of
adverse material in original form not necessary. Summary of contents, if not
misleading, can be allowed.

13. RBI v. Sahara India Financial Corpn (2008)- If the stakes are high, oral hearing
should have been provided before restraining from accepting deposits.

14. UOI v. JP Mitter (1971)- Even if the President did not give oral hearing in a dispute
relating to a judge’s age, if adequate opportunity to submit the case in writing is
given, that’s valid.

15. AK Roy v. UOI- If detenu seeks to examine witness, he shall keep them ready. No
obligation on advisory board to summon.

16. J&K v. Bakshi Gulam Azad (1967)- Denial of opportunity to cross-examine does
not violate fair hearing when witness evidence is given in affidavit.

17. SC Goitra v. United Commerical Bank- When witness have orally deposed,
refusal to cross-examine would amount to a violation of fair hearing.

18. MH Hoskot and Khatri II- Merely a legal right. Legal rep gives edge to the rich over
poor.

Case Laws 10
 19. Hira Nath v. Rajendra Medical College (1973)- Evidence collected behind the
backs of the appellant, since there was a great risk of retaliation and harassment to
female witness. Held that since opportunity was given to rebut evidence, valid.

20. Chairman, Board of Mining v. Ramjee (1994)- Prejudice Test. If fairness is shown
by the decision maker, no breach. Depends on the facts and cirumstances.

21. Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003)- PNJ often implied by nature of duty.
Particular rule and forms depend on the facts.

Post Decisional Hearing

22. Maneka allows it when: 1) emergency or immediate action required to prevent

imminent danger to public interest, 2) Post-decisional hearing jusitifed.

23. Swadeshi Cotton Mills- In case of emergency, PDH allowed.

24. KL Shepherd & HL Trehan- Criticised it. Should be the exception and not the
norm. Because if decision taken, it is unlikely to be changed.

Rule Against Bias

25. DC Aggarwal v. SBI- No presumption of bias. Has to be proved through evidence.

26. Crawford Bayley v. Union of India- Not only to avoid possibility of partial decision,
but to ensure public confidence.

Personal Bias

27. Ranjit Thakur- Case of personal hostility

28. Mineral Development Board v. State of Bihar- Mining license cancelled. Owner
had opposed minister in election. Minister filed defamation against him. Bias.

Two Tests: Reasonable suspicion of bias (outward appearance), and real likelihood of
bias (court’s evaluation).

29. Manak Lal v. Prem Chand- Misconduct proceeding against lawyer by an old client
of AG who is head of board. No real likelihood of bias, high professional standards.

30. UP v. Mohd Nooh- Deciding authority is also witness. Bias.

31. J Mohapatra v. Orissa- Author recommended own book as part of selection

committee. Bias.

Case Laws 11
 32. Ganga Bai Charities v. CIT- Rep as lawyer later becomes judge. 7 years passed.
No bias. So many cases.

33. Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)- Son of one of the members of the tender
evaluation committee files for tender. Held no bias as son was only one of the
people in the company and father only gave recommendations, did not decide.

34. GN Nayak v. Goa University (2002)- Not every kind of bias actuated by self-
interest. Interest here was to retain the appointment of a good professor, other
candidates were not suitable.

35. Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. UP (2020)- Judicial enquiry against police encounters.

Enquiry officer allegedly related to IG of Kanpur. Relied on newspaper reports as
evidence of bias. No evidence of influence or dominance.

36. Manish Pardasasni v. Inspector, State Excise (2019)- Real likelihood of bias. Ex
parte interim order not ipso facto evidence of bias.

37. Padma v. Hirala Motilal Desarda (2002)- Director of CIDCO sold land to family
members through secretive process. That he did not take part in the decision does
not matter as he should have informed about the potential bias.

38. Mohd Yunus Khan v. UP- Same person initiated actions, became witness,
accepted equity report, imposed punishment. Bias.

Pecuniary Bias

39. R v. Hendon Rural District Council, ex p Chorley (1933)- One of the members of
the estate agent acting for application to whom permission was granted.

40. Jeejebhoy v. Collector- Member of bench was member of cooperative society for
which land had been acquired.

41. R v. Bow Street Metropolitan- Pinochet case. Lord Hoffman and wife who were
director of Amnesty allowed them to intervene. Failure to disclose bias.

Subject Matter Bias

42. Gullapalli v. Nageshwar Rao- Objections to nationalisation of bus routes. Hearing

by secretary but decision by minister. Wrong.

43. Gallapalli (II)- Hearing by minister this time. Court saw no issue as minister was not
part and parcel of the making of policy, secretary was.

Case Laws 12
 44. JY Kondala Rao v. APSRTC (1960)- Minister presided over meeting to decide to
nationalise certain bus route. Heard objections later as well. Challenged on the
ground that he had pre-determined the issue. Rejected argument as committee’s
decision was bias .

45. Hari Khemu Guwali v. Dy Comm Police- Externment order. Same police
department heard and decided the case. Court rejected the challenge as long as
the two functions (initiation and decision) were discharged by two separate officers,
though they were affiliated to same department, there was no bias.

46. Krishna Bus Service v. Haryana (1985)- Quashed notification of govt which gave
DSP the powers for inspection of vehicles. Private bus operators alleged Gm was
business rival. Conflict of duty and interest. Erosion of public confidence. Person
responsible for proper running of vehicles cannot be in charge of inspecting them as
well.

Doctrine of Necessity

47. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Haryana (1987)- Choice between biased hearing or no
hearing, rule of necessity says to accept biased.

48. Charan Lal Sahu v. UOI- Challenged law which gave central government power to
represent Bhopal victims when government owns 22% share in Union carbide.
Doctrine of necessity applied because if the government does not represent the
victims, no other sovereign body will.

Speaking Order

49. Anumathi v. AK Chatterjee- Suspending license without giving reasons is an

unreasonable restriction on 19(1)(g). Part of due process.

50. Dev Dutt- PNJ duty to give reasons when the person is prejudiced.

51. SN Mukherjee- Appellate authority agreeing with subordinate’s decision, then no

duty to give reasons. If not agreeing, duty to give reasons.

52. APMC v. Quasami Janab- Giving reasons enables appellate authority.

Demonstrates fairness, correctness, transparency, objectivity, and good faith.

53. Kranti Association v. Masood Ahmed Khan- If admin decision affects anyone
prejducially, record reasons. QJA must record reasons.

Case Laws 13
 54. UOI v Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018)- Good faith requirements: not to impart
personal knowledge, no dictation, based on material on record.

55. City Corner v. Collector- Post hate decision arbitrary.

56. Kerala v. Zoom Dev- No off the record consultation.

Exceptions

57. Delhi Transport v. DTC Mazdoor Congress (1991)- Termination without giving
proper noitce, even if provided by statute, cannot be there. Tested on FR.

58. Malak Singh v. State (1981)- Confidentiality exception. Maintenance of the

surveillance register is held to be confidential document. Purpose may be defeated
if PNJ is observed.

59. Abhay Kumar Yadav v K Srinivasan (1981)- Preventive exception. Student

debarred from entering premises of college since he stabbed another student.
Preventive, PNJ will not apply.

Effect of breach

60. RC Copper- Bias. Voidable.

Case Laws 14