Can’t Seek Immunity From Legal Provisions Because Contract
Can’t Seek Immunity From Legal Provisions Because Contract In President’s Name: SC
|
Defending the Centre, ASG argued that the contract in the case stands on a different footing as it is entered into in the name of the President.
The Union of India cannot demand an immunity from the operation of pertinent legal provisions just because a contract is in the name of the President of India, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, interpreted Article 299 of the Constitution to hold that the central government, as a party to a contract, cannot wriggle out of statutory bars by arguing that the contract is in the name of the President of India.
Article 299 provides that all contracts in the exercise of the executive power of the union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President or by the Governor of the State, and all such contracts will be executed by a person duly authorized in that behalf.
“Having considered the purpose and object of Article 299, we are of the clear opinion that a contract entered into in the name of the President of India, cannot and will not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract,” held the judgment, authored by justice Narasimha.
Post Categories
Featured Posts
Latest Posts
Latest Posts
Adolescent Privacy Rights: A Critical Issue in India’s Evolving Digital Landscape
The rapid advancement of technology has transformed the lives of adolescents in India, providing unprecedented access to information, social connectivity, and learning tools. However, this digital revolution has also created a complex challenge—safeguarding the privacy of adolescents who are increasingly ...
Understanding Section 11: Why Minors Cannot Contract | Know the Law
📘 Can a Minor Enter Into a Contract? ❌ Absolutely Not.As per Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person must be of the age of majority (i.e., 18 years or 21 in certain guardianship cases) to enter ...
Judicial Decorum vs. Legal Expression: Balancing Dissent with Discipline in India’s Courtrooms
🏛️ The Incident That Sparked a National Conversation The recent events in the Supreme Court of India have reignited a fundamental debate — where does a lawyer’s right to expression end and duty to maintain decorum begin? A courtroom is ...
Transgender Persons Can Avail Of Already Earmarked Reservations, The Centre Tells : Supreme Court
The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that transgender persons can avail the already earmarked reservations in jobs and educational admissions and there is no separate reservation being provided to them. In 2014, the top court directed the Centre and ...
Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Receives President's Approval
In a crucial development, the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill, 2024 has been granted assent by President of India Droupadi Murmu. It may be recalled that in 2022, a committee was formed by Pushkar Singh Dhami-led Uttarakhand Government to ...
Maternity Benefits Must Be Granted Even If Period Of Benefit Overshoots Term Of Contractual Employment: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday(17 Aug) held that maternity benefits have to be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Maternity benefits can travel beyond the term of contractual employment. The court directed the ...
Speak With Our
Get a Appointment