Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Reliance Industries Limited VS Securities And Exchange Board Of India...
Checking relevance for Krishna Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar...
2017 1 Supreme 620 : In AK Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271, the Constitution Bench held that there is no qualitative difference between an Ordinance issued by the President and an Act passed by Parliament. The Court emphasized that both are products of legislative power and are equally subject to the constitutional limitations placed on legislative authority. The decision rejected the submission that an Ordinance is an exercise of executive power rather than legislative power, affirming that an Ordinance is a legislative act with the same force and effect as a law enacted by the legislature. This principle was applied in the context of the National Security Ordinance, where the Court upheld the legislative character of the Ordinance and its equivalence to an Act of Parliament.Checking relevance for A. K. Roy: Than Singh Tyagi: Vasantkumar Pandit VS Union Of India...
1981 0 Supreme(SC) 509 : The case of A. K. Roy v. Union of India involves a writ petition filed by Shri A. K. Roy, a Marxist member of Parliament, who was detained under the National Security Ordinance, 1980, by an order of the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, on the grounds that he was engaged in activities prejudicial to public order. The petition challenged the validity of the National Security Ordinance, 1980, and later the National Security Act, 1980, which replaced the Ordinance. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Ordinance-making power under Article 357(1)(a), the scope of preventive detention, and the principles of natural justice. The Court held that ordinances made under Article 357(1)(a) are legislative in character and exercise legislative power, and that there is no inherent restriction on the Ordinance-making power, even when the subject matter is already covered by existing legislation, provided the ordinance complies with Article 13(2). The Court also emphasized that the power to issue ordinances must be exercised in accordance with constitutional safeguards, including the requirement that the President must be satisfied that circumstances necessitate immediate action. The case is significant for establishing the limits of executive power in emergency situations and the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution.Checking relevance for INDIAN SOAPS & TOILETRIES MAKERS ASSOCIATION VS OZAIR HUSAIN...
Checking relevance for Bal Ram Bali VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for SHREYA SINGHAL VS UNION OF INDIA...
2015 2 Supreme 513 : In A.K. Roy & Ors. v. Union of India, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 272, the Supreme Court held that the expression ''''acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community'''' in Section 3(2) of the National Security Ordinance was vague and uncertain, capable of wanton abuse. The Court found that without a clear definition, the detaining authority could arbitrarily extend the clause to any commodity or service, leading to potential violations of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court emphasized that such vagueness rendered the provision unjust and unfair, constituting a flagrant violation of the procedural fairness implicit in Article 21. The Court also noted that the Explanation to the section created further uncertainty by excluding from its scope only those commodities defined under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, leaving a wide and undefined residual category of ''''essential'''' supplies and services.Checking relevance for Punjab State Electricity Board VS Thana Singh...
Checking relevance for SONU BAIRWA VS STATE OF M. P. ...
2021 0 Supreme(MP) 847 : The court addressed the application of A. K. Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271, in the context of communication of the detention order. The petitioner''''s counsel argued that the detention order was communicated to the petitioner''''s uncle rather than his parents, which was claimed to be contrary to the Supreme Court''''s observations in A. K. Roy. However, the court held that the communication to the petitioner''''s uncle did not prejudice the petitioner, and the decision-making process of the District Magistrate was lawful. This indicates that while the precedent in A. K. Roy was referenced, the court found no violation of its principles in this case, particularly regarding the manner of communication of the detention order.Checking relevance for SONU BAIRWA VS STATE OF M. P. ...
2021 0 Supreme(MP) 800 : The court addressed the application of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA Act) in relation to the precedent set in A. K. Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271. Specifically, the petitioner''''s counsel argued that the detention order was invalid because it was served to the petitioner''''s uncle rather than his parents, which was claimed to contravene the Supreme Court''''s observations in A. K. Roy. The court acknowledged this argument but did not find it dispositive, as it proceeded to uphold the detention order on other grounds, including the District Magistrate''''s exercise of discretion and the threat to public order posed by the petitioner''''s alleged black marketing of Remedesivir during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court emphasized that the detention under section 3(2) read with (3) of the NSA Act was justified and not mechanically applied, and that the order was valid despite the procedural issue regarding service of notice. This indicates that while the court recognized the relevance of A. K. Roy v. Union of India in the context of procedural fairness and service of orders, it ultimately concluded that the substantive grounds for detention under the NSA Act were sufficient to uphold the order, thereby affirming the continued applicability of the NSA Act even in light of constitutional safeguards established in A. K. Roy.
