Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The main theme of the petition, as claimed by the petitioner, is the ultra vires legislative action in enacting the Impugned Act. It is assailed by the petitioner contending that the Impugned Act is against the provisions of the constitutional rights including fundamental rights. The challenge is also made against the Impugned Act on the ground that it is against the principles of equality of law, equality before law and the provisions of relevant law, rules and regulations and bye-laws of building and Town Planning Schemes. Further allegation is that the Impugned Act has encouraged disorderly development of cities destroying the rights of natural air and light, affecting environmental problems like pollution and encouraging corrupt practice. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the Impugned Act is against the National and Public Interest and is liable to be nullified by declaring it, as ultra vires, the Constitution of India.

19. Britain has no written Constitution. Therefore, there is no direct judicial review. Notwithstanding that judicial review is inherent in the mechanism of judicial adjudication. Therefore, Courts in Britain do resort to indirect judicial review at times, with a view to protect the civil rights and liberties while examining the constitutional provisions restrictively. Obviously, therefore, even the delegated legislation cannot be excluded from the purview of judicial review. At times, Courts do resort to Wednesbury reasonableness. Judicial review is a potent instrument in the hands of Judges, but the Judges must observe the limit set by the parliamentary system upon exercise of this beneficent power, more so while exercising prerogative, plenary power of jurisdiction. In English system, under the public law. the Courts evaluate the problems associated with the viers and illegality. In Britain on the question of judicial review, the House of Lords has manifestly expounded exclusivity principle in exercise of judicial review in a very well known and celebrated case of "O'reilly v. MaCman" (1983). The Courts play greater deference to other constitutional organs jurisdictional sweeps particularly in exercise of public power.

23. The doctrine of jurisdictional error contemplates existence of error of law within the power, whereas, the doctrine of ultra vires permits no error of law within the power. Sometimes, the term simple ultra vires is used to describe action which is beyond the extent of what has been authorised and extended ultra vires is used to describe actions of the authorities within the power granted, but otherwise unlawful. At times, the problem of ultra vires is tested upon judicial review even with the help of Wednesbury's reasonableness.

72. The Constitutionality of the statute has to be determined on the totality of its provisions. A law has to be judged on the constitutionality of the generality of its provisions is a celebrated principle and not by freaks and exceptions as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R. S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Limited, 1977 (40) STC 497. Imperfection does not expose an Act or provision to invalidity, especially, that relating to socio-economic or affecting law and order situation. It must be remembered that legislation is directed at practical problems, socioeconomic mechanism is highly sensitive and complex, many problems are singular and contingent, laws are not abstract proposition and do not relate to obstruct and are not to be measured by abstract symmetry, several legislation, particularly in socio-economic matters are essential and based on experiments or experience or what one made on trial and error method and that it cannot provide for all possible situations and anticipate all possible abuses or misuses.