Information

Guest (Querist) 17 November 2020 This query is : Resolved
On Tuesday 17th November 2020 Supreme Court Bench of Honorable Justices Indira Banerjee, , Justice Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra had Confirmed Every High Court has got the Powers to strike down a Law for being in teeth of Article 245 and 246 of Part 3 of Constitution.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court has affirmed that all High Courts have the authority to invalidate laws deemed unconstitutional, specifically those conflicting with Articles 245 and 246 of Part 3 of the Constitution. This ruling was made on November 17, 2020, by Justices Indira Banerjee, Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra. The court directed a petitioner challenging the Epidemics Act to approach the relevant High Court, emphasising that High Courts have the power to strike down central acts as well as state laws.

kavksatyanarayana (Expert) 17 November 2020
Thank you very much sir for giving such information.

Isaac Gabriel (Expert) 18 November 2020
It amounts a court made rule and dictum besides delegation.

P. Venu (Expert) 20 November 2020
The proceedings in the Supreme Court in this context, as could be accessed at
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/high-courts-also-have-the-power-to-strike-down-central-acts-supreme-court-asks-petitioner-challenging-epidemic-act-to-move-hc-165948 repays study:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday required the withdrawal of a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Epidemics Act, suggesting that the concerned High Court be approached.

"What kind of a writ petition have you filed? Don't you have something called the High Court of Judicature of Bombay?', asked Justice D. Y. Chandrachud at the outset from petitioner-in-person Harshal Mirashi.
"I am challenging the Epidemics Act and a circular dated March 15...it is a central Act", replied the counsel.
"So High Courts have jurisdiction in respect of central Acts. You don't have to come to the Supreme Court. You are anyway on the issue of quarantine in Maharashtra", noted Justice Chandrachud.
When the petitioner sought a direction in that behalf for approaching the High Court, the judge said,
"Why should we direct? You should approach the appropriate authority as per law. That would mean the Supreme Court felt there is something in the petition. But your contention regarding it being a central Act is misconceived. Every High Court in the country has the power to strike down a law for being in the teeth of Article 245, 246 or Part III of the Constitution"
"We have the power, but the High Courts also do have the power to consider the validity of any law or to strike it down. Since the High Courts also have the power, it is desirable to go to the High Court!", added the judge.
"Based on my limited understanding and the research I did, I inferred that central laws are struck down by the Supreme Court...", pressed the counsel.
"If you go to the library on the second floor or the one on the ground floor of the Delhi High Court, and peruse a book called D. D. Basu's Shorter Constitution, you will find that the High Courts have the power", remarked the judge.
"Sitting in the High Court, I have struck down laws", added Justice Indira Banerjee.
"So have I", commented Justice Chandrachud.
Noting that an "efficacious and alternative remedy exists before the High Court under A. 226", the bench granted the petitioner liberty to withdrawn the plea.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries