Testing law without a challenge against its constitutional validity, could be wrong as held by Supreme Court
Civil Appeal No. 2987 of 2016
Bench: Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh
Case Brief: In the present case, the appeal is brought before the bench against the impugned order of the High Court in the writ petition. In the facts of the case, a writ petition was registered under “Suo Motu” cognizance, for the appointment of the Lokayukta, and as such failure for the constitution of the Meghalay State Human Rights Commission. In that case, the High Court passed an order and dealt with the appointment of the Chairperson and member of the Meghalaya State Human Rights Commission. Further, in this connection the High Court found directing that the Chief Secretary, State of Meghalaya to show status of appointment of the Chairperson and members of the concerned Commission and also was required to make it clear that the State should specify the name of the Hon’ble former Judge of the Supreme Court and Hon’ble Former Chief Justice of High Court, who have been offered the appointment as Chairperson. Also some more clarifications as to the appointment of the members were too sought by that Court. Moreover, the High Court took the provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 for its discussion and tested or compared the same with other Acts. Thus, present bench as its analysing the various submissions raised by the counsels appearing for the parties and also considering various previous judgements, found that the High Court has seemed comparing the provisions pertaining to the appointment of the chairperson and members under the Act of 2014 wither the provisions of the other Acts enacted by the different legislatures, but the present bench seen that there was no challenge for evaluating the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act. However, the bench said that the Suo motu petition was brought for effecting the Act of 2014 and also for setting up of the institution in the State. And thus, the said action was held impermissible. Also, further bench said that State Legislature has introduced the legislation for taking steps as regards the institution, it shall be the endeavour of the executive to see that the office of the Lokayukta is in place. Thus, the bench decided to allow the appeal in part, and also directed that the High court’s stay in connection with the provisions of the Act of 2014 should be set aside. Also, the State Human Rights Commission was directed to become operative by the end of June of this year (2016). Moreover, the bench further sought to treat the Writ petition which was pending before the High Court, as disposed of.
Read the Judgement: