9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136. 2. Interpretation of relevant articles in the Constitution of India. 3. Retrospective application of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136: The primary issue was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The court examined the relevant articles, including Articles 133, 134, 135, and 136, to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The petitioners argued that they had a right to appeal which existed on January 25, 1950, and that this right should not be taken away by the application of the Constitution to the Hyderabad State. However, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council of the Hyderabad State ceased with the commencement of the Constitution, and no pending proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain these petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgments of the Hyderabad High Court. 2. Interpretation of Relevant Articles in the Constitution of India: The court analyzed Articles 133, 134, 135, and 136 to determine their applicability. Article 133 deals with civil matters, while Article 134 pertains to criminal proceedings. Article 135 provides for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters not covered by Articles 133 and 134, specifically those where the Federal Court had jurisdiction before the Constitution. Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The court emphasized that the Hyderabad courts were not within the territory of India when they pronounced their judgments in December 1949. Therefore, the judgments did not fall within the scope of Article 136. 3. Retrospective Application of the Constitution: The court addressed the argument regarding the retrospective application of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that their right to appeal should be preserved despite the Constitution's commencement. However, the court held that legislation is primarily prospective and not retrospective unless explicitly stated. The court cited precedents, including the Privy Council decisions in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi & Another, and The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving, to support its view. The court concluded that there was no express provision or necessary implication in the Constitution to grant the Supreme Court jurisdiction over decisions of courts that were not within the territory of India before January 26, 1950. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgments of the Hyderabad High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the omission to provide for such relief in the Constitution could not be remedied by the Supreme Court, and any assumption of jurisdiction not warranted by the clear words of the relevant articles would amount to judicial overreach.
|
