Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

55. At the same time, in another decision in Manoj Narula v Union of India,9 the Supreme Court considered the limitations which are exceptions to this principle. In that decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that in the garb of interpreting the Constitution itself, we cannot assume that there is a defect or lacunae therein or that we can remove it by an interpretative process. The Court cautioned that nothing should be read in the Constitution that is expressly not there. There is no question of adding or subtracting anything as far as the Constitution is 8 Subramanian Swamy v Union of India & Ors, (2016) 7 SCC 221. 9 (2014) 9 SCC 1.

"By interpretative process, it is difcult to read such prohibition into Arts. 75(1) or 164(1) on the powers of PM/CMs as that would tantamount to prescribing eligibility qualifcation and adding a disqualifcation which has not been stipulated in the Constitution - Representation of the People 9th & 13th September 2019 Vijay Namdeorao Wadettiwar v State Of Maharashtra & Ors | Surinder Mohan Arora & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors 10-ASWP6996-19+J.DOC Act, 1951 -5. 8-Constitutional Interpretation - Basic rules of interpretation -Framers'/legislative intent-Doctrine of implied limitation-Constitution of India, Art. 32 D. Constitutional Law - Silences of the Constitution/Implied Limitation-Constitutional trust reposed in holders of high ofce- Held, in a controlled Constitution like ours, the Prime Minister, as also the Chief Ministers, are expected to act with constitutional responsibility as a consequence of which the cherished values of democracy and established norms of good governance get condignly fructifed - The Framers of the Constitution left many a thing unwritten by reposing immense trust in the Prime Minister - The scheme of the Constitution sugests that there has to be an emergence of constitutional governance which would gradually grow to give rise to a constitutional renaissance- Constitution of India,Arts.75 and 164 E. Constitutional Law - Constitutional Trust - Applicability - Held, doctrine of constitutional trust is applicable not only to exercise of legislative power but also 9th & 13th September 2019 Vijay Namdeorao Wadettiwar v State Of Maharashtra & Ors | Surinder Mohan Arora & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors 10-ASWP6996-19+J.DOC to every high constitutional functionary -Therefore, doctrine is applicable to Prime Minister as also Chief Ministers who hold high constitutional positions - Constitution of India - Arts. 75 and 164 - Prime Minister and Chief Ministers - Position and status of F. Constitutional Interpretation Subsidiary rules of-interpretation Casus omissus/Necessary implication - Doctrine of implication - Scope and applicability - Explained in detail - Held, doctrine of implication can be taken aid of for interpreting constitutional provision in expansive manner - Doctrine is fundamentally founded on rational inference of idea from words used in the text - However, interpretation given by Court has to have a base in Constitution - Court cannot rewrite a constitutional provision - Words "on the advice of the Prime Minister/Chief Minister" under Arts. 75(1) and 164(1) of Constitution - Interpretation of - Held, while interpreting these words "on the advice of the PM/CM" appearing in Arts. 75(1) and 164(1), it cannot be legitimately inferred that there is prohibition to think of 9th & 13th September 2019 Vijay Namdeorao Wadettiwar v State Of Maharashtra & Ors | Surinder Mohan Arora & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors 10-ASWP6996-19+J.DOC person as Minister if charges have been framed against him in respect of serious or heinous ofences including corruption cases - Constitution of India, Arts. 32, 75(1) and 164(1) S. Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption - Corruption/ Abuse of power - Held, erodes fundamental tenets of rule of law - Corruption has potentiality to destroy many a progressive aspect and has acted as formidable enemy of the nation - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Ss. 7 to 13- Rule of Law (Paras 16 to 18) Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682, relied on Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 737 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 187, afrmed X. Constitutional Law - Democracy - Conditions for survival and success of democratic values - Constitution of India - Preamble 9th & 13th September 2019 Vijay Namdeorao Wadettiwar v State Of Maharashtra & Ors | Surinder Mohan Arora & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors 10-ASWP6996-19+J.DOC Held:

The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such sufering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality."

17. Recently, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI [(2014) 8 SCC 682] , the Constitution Bench, speaking through R.M. Lodha, C.J., while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which was inserted by Act 45 of 2003, as unconstitutional, has opined that: (SCC pp. 725-26, para 59) "59. It seems to us that classifcation which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in the government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of fnding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an ofence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound diferentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their 9th & 13th September 2019 Vijay Namdeorao Wadettiwar v State Of Maharashtra & Ors | Surinder Mohan Arora & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors 10-ASWP6996-19+J.DOC status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an ofence under the PC Act, 1988."