Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Precedence and Limitations
Limitation of Special Laws to Override Common Statute The general principle of statutory interpretation is that a special law (lex specialis) generally prevails over a general or common statute (lex generalis) when both deal with the same subject matter and contain conflicting provisions. This principle is expressed by the Latin maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant, meaning that general provisions do not derogate from special provisions. Meaning A special law is enacted to regulate a particular subject, class of persons or specific situation, whereas a general statute applies more broadly. When both laws apply to the same matter, the special law ordinarily takes precedence over the general statute, provided that the legislature has not indicated a contrary intention. Limitations on the overriding effect of special laws The overriding effect of a special law is subject to several limitations. Legislative intention: A special law does not automatically override a general statute in every situation. The intention of the legislature must be considered. Absence of conflict: If the provisions of the special law and the general statute can operate harmoniously, both should ordinarily be given effect. Express overriding provisions: If the general statute contains an express non obstante clause, such as “notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law,” the court must examine its scope and the legislative intention behind it. Subsequent legislation: A later general statute may override an earlier special law if the legislature clearly intends to do so. However, a general amendment does not ordinarily repeal a special law by implication. Different fields of operation: Where the special law and general statute govern different aspects of a matter, the special law does not necessarily displace the general statute altogether. Constitutional supremacy: Neither a special law nor a general statute can override the Constitution. Both remain subject to constitutional limitations. Important judicial decisions LIC v. D.J. Bahadur (1981) The Supreme Court of India explained the relationship between special and general laws and recognized that a special statute ordinarily prevails over a general statute dealing with the same subject. The Court also considered whether a subsequent general enactment was intended to override the special legislation. LIC v. D.J. Bahadur establishes that the special-versus-general distinction is contextual, not absolute. A special statute does not automatically override every other statute, and the courts must examine legislative intention, inconsistency and the possibility of harmonious construction. Applied to MOFA, the decision supports a careful examination of the limits of Section 11. It does not, on its own, establish that freehold deemed conveyance is impermissible. Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. (2001) Solidaire India establishes that a later special statute may prevail over an earlier special statute where their overriding provisions conflict and the legislative intention supports that result. It does not establish that Section 11 of MOFA automatically overrides leasehold restrictions or independently authorises conversion into freehold ownership. Its relevance to a MOFA dispute is principally interpretive: the court must identify the actual statutory conflict, consider legislative intention and distinguish statutory priority from the separate question of whether the society has a substantive right to freehold title. The Supreme Court considered the conflict between […]
Read more
The Expanding Definition of “Promoter”: Impact on Landowners’ Rights. Need for parliamentary intervention?
NEED FOR AUTHORITATIVE CLARIFICATION BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON THE SCOPE OF SECTION 11 OF MOFA: GERALD MICHAEL MISQUITTA AND ROHINI GUPTA Gerald Michael Misquitta Vs State of Maharashtra ( “Gerald” ) Rohini Gupta & Anr. v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors., WP No. 5991/2026, Bombay High Court, decided 8 September 2026, in which Mohini Gupta is the second petitioner. Indian Kanoon ( “Gupta” ) The two cases are quite closely connected because both concern Section 11 of MOFA, deemed conveyance, landowners/lessees, and the powers of the District Deputy Registrar (DDR). But there is an important difference: Gerald Misquitta is primarily a procedural/natural-justice case, whereas Gupta is substantially a Section 2(c)/Section 11 substantive-promoter case. Basic facts — side-by-side Sr No Particulars Gerald Michael Misquitta v. State of Maharashtra Rohini Gupta & Anr. v. DDR3 1 Court Bombay High Court Bombay High Court 2 Judgment date 25 Feb 2026 8 Sept 2026 3 Petition WP 1739/2022 WP 5991/2026 4 Ownership Misquitta family property, Vile Parle West Gupta family property, Juhu 5 Original owners Multiple Misquitta co-owners Late Kundanlal Laxmichand Gupta; petitioners were his heirs 6 Developer/lessee structure Owners → Rahejas → A.K. Associates/sub-lessee Owner → Raheja/Wadhwa lessees → developers 7 Society Name Priya Co-operative Housing Society Queens Park Premises Co-operative Society 8 Lease 98-year lease 98-year lease 9 Earlier transfer to society Society claimed/received only leasehold-related rights Society already received assignment of leasehold rights in 1978 10 DDR order 28 May 2014 23 June 2025 11 Main challenge Owners were not properly impleaded/heard; DDR did not conduct required enquiry Whether landowners themselves became “promoters” under MOFA Result DDR order + conveyance quashed and remanded Petition dismissed; DDR order upheld The Misquitta judgment records that the property was owned by several co-owners and that the society’s deemed-conveyance application proceeded without impleading all of them. Indian Kanoon The Gupta judgment records a 98-year lease from Kundanlal Gupta and subsequent construction of Queens Park by the lessees/developers. Indian Kanoon Paragraph-wise comparison This is the more useful way to read the judgments. Para 1–3 — What is being challenged? Gerald — paras 1–3 The petitioner challenged the DDR’s 28 May 2014 certificate permitting unilateral deemed conveyance and the subsequent registered deed of assignment/transfer dated 5 July 2014. The important factual feature was that the petitioner claimed to be a co-owner, but was not properly made a party to the deemed-conveyance proceedings. Indian Kanoon Gupta — paras 1–4 The petitioners were the legal heirs of the original landowner. They challenged the DDR’s order dated 23 June 2025 granting unilateral deemed conveyance of approximately 3,901.70 sq.m. to Queens Park Society. The Gupta petitioners said that their father had died in 1981 and that the DDR had proceeded on a notice issued in his name. Indian Kanoon Difference In Gerald, the central problem was: “Were all persons whose rights were affected actually heard?” In Gupta, the central question became: “Were these landowners themselves promoters under Section 2(c) MOFA?” Paragraphs 10–15 — Meaning of “promoter” This is the most important substantive difference. Gerald The Court did not finally determine the title/promoter controversy because […]
Read more
THE JURISPRUDENCE OF SMEAR CAMPAIGNS: CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL, AND REGULATORY RESPONSES ACROSS COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS
SUBJECT: SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND THE LAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIA, THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND SINGAPORE It is obvious that, youths learn from what is talked in public. The icons are leaders, actors, politicians and those who are in public life. It’s easy in India to smear someone’s reputation. Reason is weak provisions. In India opposition leader who come from high profile family uses all his conveniences and power to disrepute and threaten all Competent Authorities. But he escapes without a scratch. Dialogues in Hindi movies like “kya karlega tera kanoon” also played important role. In my childhood we were taught by mothers not to say insulting or false about others. It was considered as sin. However it appears that deity of Karma is also tired of dealing with falsehood and false public allegations. There is a wait list for justice there too. A famous bhajan ” ninda a kare keni re” loved by Bapu is forgotten. With this common parlance discussion lets turn to the legal discussion. USA: UAE-Backed Dark PR (2023): The United Arab Emirates (UAE) hired Swiss firm Alp Services to conduct a covert, multi-year smear campaign targeting a US-based businessman, Hazim Nada, and his commodities-trading firm, Lord Energy. The campaign manipulated markets and successfully forced the company into liquidation by spreading false allegations of terrorist. ( check https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-an-american-hold-the-united-arab-emirates-responsible-for-a-smear-campaign) Martin Luther King Jr. FBI Surveillance (1960s): The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover orchestrated a massive, covert operation to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., labelling him a subversive. The agency sent defamatory packages, wiretapped his communications, and urged him to commit suicide to silence his activism. ( check: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-releases-report-fbi-crusade-against-martin-luther-king-jr-urges-ashcroft-not ) Planned Parenthood Foetal Tissue Controversy (2015): Anti-abortion groups released deceptively edited videos to accuse Planned Parenthood of illegally selling foetal tissue for profit. The healthcare organization denounced the effort as a fabricated smear campaign designed to cut off their federal funding. ( check https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34396751) UNITED KINGDOM: The Sir David Attenborough Climate Campaign (2019–2023): Following the release of the Netflix documentary Our Planet, which featured footage of Pacific walruses falling to their deaths, climate change deniers initiated a widespread smear campaign against Attenborough. The attackers falsely alleged that he and the production crew fabricated the tragedy to artificially push climate change narratives. (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-continue-smear-campaign-against-sir-david-attenborough/) The Labour Together Corporate Intelligence Report (2024–2026): In a major political controversy, it was revealed that the UK think tank Labour Together commissioned a US public relations firm (APCO) to compile a 58-page report, codenamed “Operation Cannon”. The report targeted journalists at the Sunday Times who were investigating the group’s campaign funding and attempted to discredit them by alleging foreign interference and making personal attacks. SINGAPORE Singtel vs. Telco Rivals (2015) The Incident: Telecommunications giant Singtel and social media agency Gushcloud were exposed for running an orchestrated online smear campaign against rival telcos StarHub and M1. Details: Bloggers were paid and incentivized to fabricate complaints and criticize the network connections of the rival telcos. Resolution: Following whistleblowing by blogger Xiaxue, Singtel’s CEO publicly apologized, the responsible employees were fired, and the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) issued a stern warning to the telco. (check https://www.campaignasia.com/article/ethical-crackdown-regulating-singapores-influencer-scene/2xnaatoej5nqkwmj28qr5s2lyl) […]
Read more
AUTHORS’ RIGHTS AGAINST PUBLISHERS IN INDIA: NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY, ROYALTY PROTECTION AND LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY
AUTHORS’ RIGHTS AGAINST PUBLISHERS IN INDIA: NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY, ROYALTY PROTECTION AND LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY BY SHRUTI DESAI Abstract The Indian publishing industry has witnessed growing concerns regarding non-payment of royalties, suppression of sales figures, denial of accounts, unauthorized reprints, and exploitative copyright assignments. Many authors, particularly academic and regional-language writers, suffer financial loss because publishers often maintain opaque accounting systems and one-sided publishing agreements. This article examines the legal rights of authors under the Copyright Act, 1957, discusses the right to royalties and rendition of accounts, and analyses important judicial precedents protecting authors against unfair publishing practices. The article also highlights the urgent need for statutory reforms ensuring transparency, accountability, and equitable sharing of publishing revenues. Keywords #Copyright, #royalty, #publishing #agreements, #rendition of #accounts, $authors’rights, #copyright #assignment, #literary works, #publishing industry, #moralrights, #transparency. INTRODUCTION The relationship between an author and a publisher is traditionally founded on trust, transparency, and mutual commercial benefit. However, in India, numerous authors — particularly academic writers, regional-language writers, educational authors, and first-time authors — have repeatedly complained of unfair publishing practices. These include non-payment or delayed payment of royalties, refusal to furnish proper sales statements, under-reporting of print runs, unauthorised reprints, misuse of digital rights, and one-sided copyright assignments. Many authors are compelled to sign standard-form publishing agreements without bargaining power. In several instances, publishers continue commercially exploit literary works while withholding accurate accounts of sales. Such practices not only amount to breach of contract but may also constitute infringement of statutory and moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. Indian courts have recognised that authors possess enforceable rights against publishers and licensees, including the right to rendition of accounts and protection against unauthorised exploitation of copyright. Legal Framework Under Indian Copyright Law The principal legislation governing literary rights in India is the Copyright Act, 1957. The Act recognises copyright as a valuable proprietary right and protects authors against unauthorised use of their works. Ownership of Copyright Section 17 of the Copyright Act recognises the author as the first owner of copyright, subject to limited exceptions. Assignment of Copyright Sections 18 and 19 regulate the assignment of copyright. An assignment must: • be in writing; • identify the specific rights assigned; • specify duration and territorial extent; • mention royalty and consideration. Where the duration is not specified, the assignment is deemed to be for five years. If the territorial extent is not specified, it is presumed to extend only within India. The 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act significantly strengthened author protection, especially concerning royalty rights. Royalty Rights of Authors The concept of royalty is central to publishing contracts. Royalty constitutes the author’s share in commercial exploitation of the literary work. Unfortunately, many publishers fail to disclose: • actual print quantities; • reprints; • warehouse stock; • digital sales; • export sales; • online platform sales; • discount structures; • destruction of unsold stock. This results in substantial financial loss to authors. The law increasingly recognizes that authors cannot be deprived of equitable royalty participation. In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court observed that the Copyright Act now recognizes the right of equal […]
Read more
The Jungle, the Fairy, and the Ballot Box
“The Fairy and the Freebie: How Easy Comfort Weakens a Nation” As soon as Election comes every political party starts disbursing money to the voters. Some offer monthly Rs.70,000/- some offer. The taxpayer is a mute spectator. I will tell you story of a Jungle. The Story of the Jungle Once upon a time, there was a beautiful jungle where all the animals lived peacefully. They worked hard to find their food by hunting and gathering. They shared with one another and cared for each other. The jungle was full of love, cooperation, and happiness. All the animals helped one another and took responsibility for their lives. They were strong, active, and independent. One day, a fairy came to the jungle. She had a magic wand. By waving her wand, she started giving food and water to all the animals and birds. At first, everyone was happy. But slowly, the animals became lazy. Since food was easily available, they stopped working and hunting. They spent most of their time sleeping and eating. Over time, they even found it difficult to walk and run because they were no longer active. After a few months, a hunter entered the jungle. He began hunting the animals recklessly. Earlier, the animals were brave and skilled at escaping or fighting back. But now, because they were weak and lazy, many of them were easily caught in traps. Many animals were hunted. Fear spread throughout the jungle. The King of the Jungle called a meeting. All the animals gathered and discussed what had gone wrong. They realized that the fairy had been sent by the hunter to make them weak and dependent. Because of her magic, they had lost their strength and alertness. They decided to send the fairy away from the jungle. After the fairy was deported, the animals slowly returned to their old habits. They started working hard again, hunting, sharing, and taking care of one another. Soon, the jungle became peaceful and happy once more. Moral of the Story Easy comfort can make us weak. Hard work and self-reliance make us strong. ____________________________________________________________ Freebies and Constitution The legality of election “freebies” in India hinges on balancing Directive Principles (social welfare) with fiscal responsibility under the Constitution. While critics argue they constitute bribery and misuse public funds (violating Art. 266, 282), the Supreme Court in The S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2013) case is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment regarding electoral freebies. The Court ruled that pre-poll promises in election manifestos do not constitute a “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, as they are part of a party’s agenda, not individual bribery. The judgment established a distinction between election promises for public welfare and the direct bribery of voters. However, it has been criticized for failing to curb the growing culture of “freebie politics” that threatens state finances. Latest View of Supreme Court: TAMIL NADU POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 158/2026 Currently the view of Supreme Court has changed its view. In the above matter CJI Suryakant said […]
Read more
UNTRACEABLE MEMBERS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS IN COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES: PROCEDURES AND PRECEDENTS
In the model bye-laws of a cooperative housing society (such as those in Maharashtra), a member is deemed to have ceased membership if their whereabouts are unknown for a continuous period of seven years and their shares and interest in the property are unclaimed by anyone else. This cessation allows the society to take further action regarding the property. Procedures and Provisions While specific actions for handling the property itself require legal procedures beyond just the society’s internal rules, the bye-laws provide a framework for managing the situation and ultimately dealing with the ownership: Cessation of Membership: Bye-law No. 55(f) (in the Maharashtra Model Bye-laws) explicitly states that a person shall cease to be a member if their whereabouts are not known for seven continuous years and no claim is made on their interest in the property. However, the associate member shall not cease to be Associate Member when the First Member ceases to be the member of the society if Associate Member holds title and interest in the property jointly with the member. The Committee shall take further action in the matter as indicated in the Bye-law No. 62. Vesting of Shares/Interest: If, after a member’s death or disappearance, there is no claimant (nominee, heir, or legal representative), their shares and interest in the capital/property of the society will vest in the society itself. Nominations and Legal Heirs: The bye-laws heavily emphasize the importance of nomination (Bye-law No. 32-34). If an owner is untraceable and has no nominee, the committee would typically ask for a legal representative or heir to come forward. Payment of Dues: The untraceable owner’s account would likely accumulate unpaid maintenance charges and other dues, incurring interest (up to 21% per annum in some model bye-laws). These liabilities must typically be cleared before any transfer of interest can occur. Formal Communication: The society uses formal communication methods, such as registered post to the last known address or displaying notices on the society’s notice board, which are considered valid service of notice even if the member is untraceable. The society must maintain records of all sent notices as proof. Committee Action: The managing committee has the power to manage the society’s affairs (Bye-law No. 111), which includes dealing with non-compliance and cessation of membership. They are responsible for initiating the process of addressing the untraceable owner’s status. Registrar and Courts: The final authority in serious disputes or complex situations, such as an untraceable owner with no clear legal path forward, ultimately lies with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies or a Cooperative Court. The society would likely need to approach these legal bodies for formal orders to take control of or dispose of the property. DISCUSSION: A is member and have signed Conveyance. A is not traceable for more than 40 years. Taking advantage of situation widow of promoter applies for membership. It was rejected. During course of arguments she sell the flat. After two decades the flat goes for redevelopment. The purchaser of the flat sells flat to the third party. Society refuses all a membership, In a recent ruling of Supreme Court of India K, Gopi […]
Read more
Ownerless Property and State Claims: Bona Vacantia, Escheat, and Evacuee Property in India and Beyond
In India, Bona Vacantia (meaning “ownerless goods”) is the legal doctrine where property without a rightful owner reverts to the State. This principle is primarily codified under Article 296 of the Constitution of India. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK (ARTICLE 296) Article 296 dictates how unclaimed property is distributed between the Union and the States: Vesting in States: Property located within a State that lacks a rightful owner (due to escheat, lapse, or bona vacantia) vests in that particular State Government. Vesting in the Union: Property located outside any State (such as in Union Territories) or property that was under the control of the Central Government at the time it became ownerless vests in the Union Government. It reads as under: Article 296 in Constitution of India Property accruing by escheat or lapse or as bona vacantia Subject as hereinafter provided any property in the territory of India which, if this Constitution had not come into operation, would have accrued to His Majesty or, as the case may be, to the Ruler of an Indian State by escheat or lapse, or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner, shall, if it is property situate in a State, vest in such State, and shall, in any other case, vest in the Union: Provided that any property which at the date when it would have so accrued to His Majesty or to the Ruler of an Indian State was in the possession or under the control of the Government of India or the Government of a State shall, according as the purposes for which it was then used or held were purposes of the Union or a State, vest in the Union or in that State. Explanation. –In the article, the expressions “Ruler” and “Indian Slate” have the same meanings as in article 363. Article 363 in Constitution of India provides as under: Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but subject to the provisions of article 143, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which was entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State and to which the Government was a party and which has or has been continued in operation after such commencement, or in any dispute in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of this Constitution relating to any such treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument. (2) In this article— (a)”Indian State” means any territory recognised before the commencement of this Constitution by his Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India as being such a State; and (b)”Ruler” includes the Prince, Chief or other person recognised before such commencement by his Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India as the Ruler of any Indian State. How and when it works: When property is identified as ownerless, […]
Read more
पुनर्विकास परियोजनाओं के लिए न्यायिक निकाय की आवश्यकता
पुनर्विकास परियोजनाओं के लिए न्यायिक निकाय की आवश्यकता आज हम बात करेंगे एक बहुत क्रिटिकल मुद्दा है रीडवलपमेंट। रीडवलपमेंट फंडामेंटल राइट, आर्टिकल 300 ए, गाइडलाइन 79 ए और मैनेजिंग कमेट। अब हम आगे बढ़ते हैं। उसके पहले मैं आपसे निवेदन करूंगी कि मेरे यह चैनल को लाइक, सब्सक्राइब और शेयर कीजिए क्योंकि यह फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट है और आपको यह जो है मुद्दे वो आपके जनरल पब्लिक के काम में आते हैं वैसे मुद्दे हैं। चलो आगे बढ़ते हैं हम रीडवलपमेंट में। रीडवलपमेंट एक बहुत हॉट केक है और ये हर एक तीसरा बिल्डिंग रीडवलपमेंट में जा रहा है। सही बात है। जैसे हमारी लाइफ है तो हम यह जैसे हमारे हिंदू शास्त्रों में लिखा है कि हम शरीर छोड़ के हमारा आत्मा नए शरीर में जाता है और नया जन्म लेता है। तो जो इधर है उसको नया जन्म लेना ही पड़ता है। तो वैसे ही अगर बिल्डिंग पुराना हो जाए तो उसको नया बनाना पड़ता है। तो उसके लिए सबसे पहले जो मूवमेंट शुरू हुई थी वो आइलैंड सिटी ऑफ मुंबई से हुई थी क्योंकि सारे के सारे जो पुराने बिल्डिंग्स थे जो चॉल्स थी वो मसून के सीजन में कॉलेज हो जाती थी उसके लिए कोई कानून नहीं थे और मुरली देवरा जो हमारे बहुत वरिष्ठ नेता थे उन्होंने एक कानून लाया और रीडवलपमेंट ऑफ डाई लेपिटेटेड बिल्डिंग्स। तो इसके तहत उन लोगों को काफी सुविधा मिली और यह शुरुआत में जो थी वो सेस बिल्डिंग के लिए थी और वो चर्च गेट्स कुलाबा से लेके बैंड्रा तक एप्लीकेबल थी। धीरे-धीरे 1991 आया जो डीसीआर 1991 डेवलपमेंट कंट्रोल रेगुलेशन 1991 आया और उसके अंदर सारे प्रावधान किए गए। माड़ा की लैंड को रीडवलप कैसे किया जाए? स्लम को कैसे रीडवलप किया जाए? आर्मी वाली जो है पुलिस हेड क्वार्टर्स कैसे डेवलप किया जाए? बीएएमसी की जो प्रॉपर्टीज है उसको कैसे डेवलप किया जाए? और जो हाउसिंग सोसाइटी है उसे कैसे डेवलप किया जाए? यह सारे प्रावधान मैंने अपनी बुक कमेंट्री ऑन डेवलपमेंट कंट्रोल रेगुलेशन 1991 जिसकी 15 एडिशंस आ चुकी है आई थी वो उसके अंदर हमने मैंने डिस्कस किया है। आगे बढ़ते हैं 1991 के बाद क्या हुआ? इसके बाद 2009 के तहत एक 79 ए का गाइडलाइंस आया। यह गाइडलाइंस थी कोऑपरेटिव सोसाइटी क्योंकि मेजरिटी जो रीडवलपमेंट है वह कोऑपरेटिव हाउसिंग सोसाइटी जो अभी लागू होता है पूरे बंबई में और इसके तहत थर्ड जनवरी 2009 में एक गाइडलाइंस आई वो गाइडलाइंस के तहत रीडवलपमेंट के प्रोजेक्ट्स तैयार करने होते थे मैनेजिंग कमेट को इसके अंदर बहुत सारी कंप्लेंट्स आई कि जो मैनेजिंग कमेट है वह रीडवलपमेंट प्रोसेस में मेंबर्स को कॉन्फिडेंस में नहीं लेती। ट्रांसपेरेंसी नहीं है। आर्बिटरी अपॉइंटमेंट्स होती है। बिजनेस जो होता है वह कंडक्टिंग बिजनेस मतलब कि वह चाहे एजीएम हो, एसजीएम हो तो वो लोग सही जवाब नहीं देते हैं। ऐसे करली बिहेव करते हैं जैसे वो लोग जमींदार है और बाकी के जो फ्लैट ओनर्स हैं वो उनके स्लेव्स है, टेनेंट्स हैं। तो ऐसे भी बिहेव करते हैं और वो लोग वीडियो उतारते हैं तो वीडियो वो लोग शेयर नहीं करते हैं मेंबर्स के साथ में क्योंकि वो अपने पास ही रखते हैं। रजिस्ट्रार में जाते हैं तो वो […]
Read more
CAN SUPREME COURT IMPOSE TIME LIMIT UPON PRESIDENT OF INDIA OR GOVERNOR OF STATE FOR SIGNING BILL? DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS.
Background: The Legislature for the State of Tamil Nadu, between 13.01.2020 and 28.04.2023, enacted and forwarded 12 Bills to the Governor for the grant of assent as per Article 200 of the Constitution. Even though the present Governor took charge of the office with effect from 18.11.2021, he did not take the necessary action on any of the said Bills forwarded to his office till October 2023. The State of Tamil Nadu, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Governor, had to ultimately file the present writ petition before Court. The same was filed on 31.10.2023. The State Legislature, on 18.11.2023, convened a special session and repassed the 10 bills which were returned by the Governor after withholding of assent. The bills were passed without any material change and were forwarded to the Governor’s Secretariat on the same day for his assent in accordance with the first proviso to Article 200. This Court, in its order dated 20.11.2023, noted that since the re-passed 10 bills were pending with the Governor, the hearing of the writ petition be adjourned to 01.12.2023 and issued directions that this Court shall be apprised of the progress in the matter. On 28.11.2023, the Governor, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the State, in exercise of his discretion, reserved the said re-passed Bills for the consideration of the President. The letter of the Governor to the Union Government referring the said Bills for the consideration of the President mentioned that the Bills were re-considered and passed again by the State Legislature. Interestingly, although the Governor noted that the Bills were intra-vires the competence of the State Legislature having been legislated under Entry 66 of List I, Entry 32 of List II and Entry 25 of List III, yet he reserved the said Bills for the consideration of the President in the second round on the ground that the Bills suffered from repugnancy on account of being contrary to Entry 66 of the Union List i.e., List I. These grounds have been taken by the Governor to reserve the 10 Bills for consideration of the President. In the premises Chief Minister asked the Governor to (i) Recall the 10 Bills reserved for the consideration of the President and grant assent expeditiously;(ii) In future, grant assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature within 30 days and avoid unnecessary reservation of the bills for the consideration of the President; (iii) Act in accordance with the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers. Matter went up to the Supreme Court COMMENTS OF AUTHOR Before going into the details of the Judgement, it is not highlighted that even the state government of Tamil Nadu was playing mischief with provisions of the Constitution. Question arises, how? Article 200 of the Constitution provides that if the Bill is returned by the Governor, the State Assembly may re-pass the Bill with or without modification and the Governor cannot withhold the same. (The said Article text is given herein below) Here also, the State Assembly re-passed the Bills without any amendments and without implementing the suggestions […]
Read more
Are Governors of States bound by orders of court in India?
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF GOVERNOR IN INDIA Let us first see the provision. Article 154 in Constitution of India Executive power of State (1) The executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution. (2) Nothing in this article shall– (a)be deemed to transfer to the Governor any functions conferred by any existing law on any other authority; or (b)prevent Parliament or the Legislature of the State from conferring by law functions on any authority subordinate to the Governor. Now we go to next Article 175 Right of Governor to address and send messages to the House or Houses (1)The Governor may address the Legislative Assembly or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, either House of the Legislature of the State, or both Houses assembled together, and may for that purpose require the attendance of members. (2)The Governor may send messages to the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State, whether with respect to a Bill then pending in the Legislature or otherwise, and a House to which any message is so sent shall with all convenient dispatch consider any matter required by the message to be taken into consideration. Assent to Bills When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President: Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the . House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom: Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill. Comments: Do you notice there is no time limit provided within which a Governor has to sign a Bill. Why? Constituent Assembly on Signing of Bill: This issue was discussed in detail in the Constituent Assembly. Following are excerpts A detailed discussion was held in the Constituent Assembly. I reproduce below the excerpt of the discussion and why […]
Read more