Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2005 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 876 - SUPREME COURTConstitutional validity of Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ('the Act') - requirement to obtain prior approval of the Central Government - HELD THAT:- Learned Solicitor General, on the other hand, though very fairly admitting that the nexus between criminals and some elements of establishment including politicians and various sections of bureaucracy has increased and also that there is a disturbing increase in the level of corruption and these problems need to be addressed, infractions of the law need to be investigated, investigations have to be conducted quickly and effectively without any interference and the investigative agencies should be allowed to function without any interference of any kind whatsoever and that they have to be insulated from any extraneous influences of any kind, contends that a legislation cannot be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness or unreasonableness as such a ground is available only to quash executive action and orders. Further contention is that even a delegated legislation cannot be quashed on the ground of mere arbitrariness and even for quashing such a legislation, manifest arbitrariness is the requirement of law. In support, reliance has been placed on observations made in a Three Judge Bench decision in State of A.P. and Ors. v. McDowell & Co. and Ors.[1996 (3) TMI 525 - SUPREME COURT] that no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable and observations made in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.[1995 (12) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT] that delegated legislation can be struck down only if there is manifest arbitrariness. Further contention of learned Solicitor General is that the conclusion drawn in Vineet Narain's case [1997 (12) TMI 615 - SUPREME COURT] is erroneous that the Constitution Bench decision in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Ors.[1991 (7) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT] is not an authority for the proposition that in the case of high officials, requirement of prior permission/sanction from a higher officer or Head of the Department is permissible, the submission is that conclusion reached in Vineet Narain's decision run contrary to observations and findings in Veeraswami's case. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that the matters deserve to be heard by a larger Bench, subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
|