State of Karnataka V. UOI summary

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

November 8, 1977

CASE IN FEDERAL STRUCTURE

Facts of the case :

Opposition members in Karnataka assembly wrote to the Union Home Ministry alleging corruption, nepotism and favouritism by government. Thereafter, the state government under the section 3 of Commission Of Inquiry Act, 1932 establishes the inquiry commission for the same. Thereafter, central government constitutes the another one more inquiry commission under the said act for the purposes not covered under the previous inquiry commission constituted by the state government. Thus the state government filed the petition under Article 131 before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the said commission. 

Contention of the parties : 

Petitioner : State Government contended that the union government does not have any right to interfere in the subject matters of the state as it is against the federal structure of the constitution. It is illegal and unconstitutional to constitute another inquiry commission when one is already in the force for the same issues. Moreover it was argued that section 3 of the said act does not give any authority to central government to do so, and if it, then it is ultra vires to Constitution. 

Defendant : It was argued that the petition is not maintainable as it goes beyond the scope of the article 131. Moreover it argues that even if the petition exists, the central government has the full authority under section 3 of the said act to constitute any such commission which is for the purposes not covered by the previous commission. 

Question before the court :

  1. Whether the petition valid before the court under Article 131 of the constitution.
  2. Whether central government has the authority to constitute any such commission for the inquiry against sitting Chief Minister and other cabinet members.
  3. Whether section 3 of Commission Of Inquiry Act, 1932 is ultra vires of the constitution. 

JUDGEMENT

The court observed that the Chief Minister and the other ministers have filed the petition in exercise of their governmental powers or we can say as the representative of the people or as the state, therefore they have the sufficient Interest and means to maintain the suit under Article 131 of the constitution. Moreover the Supreme Court observed that the purpose of the newly constituted Commission is different from that of previous one. It further stated that the Constitution is not truly federal in nature. Supreme Court further stated that Federal Structure can not be jeopardize. The courts also highlighted that article 248 reads with entry 97 of the List I covers section 3 of the said act and covers the inquiry against ministers in matter of public importance. Adding to it entry 94 in List I and entry 45 in List III covers the inquiry against ministers. Thus it can be established that this inquiry is not unconstitutional.
The Inquiry Act, 1932 is constituted to maintain the confidence of the people in the democracy of the country. The core purpose of the act is to establish the inquiry commissions so that the real facts of laws can be brought in knowledge of the people. Aslo under article 356 of the constitution, the president before imposing emergency required to be satisfied that there is failure of state machinery and thus reports of the commission served this purpose. Therefore it can be concluded that neither the act nor any if its provision is ultra vires to the Constitution. 



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more