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.
The Supreme Court on Friday (September 22) granted relief to three judicial service aspirants from Bihar whose candidatures were rejected by the Bihar Public Service Commission(BPSC) due to non-production of original certificates at the time of interview. Holding that production ...
The Supreme Court recently allowed a candidate who passed Class 12 as a private student to take admission for MBBS course after NEET counselling. This was after the National Medical Commission informed the Court that as per the latest Graduate ...
As legal professionals, we recognize the profound implications of the Supreme Court of India's recent deliberations on same-sex marriage. While the Court refrained from granting full marriage equality, the discussions have paved the way for significant legal discourse on LGBTQ+ ...
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a document can produced during cross-examination in a civil trial to confront a party to the suit or a witness. The Court also held that there is no distinction between ...
The Supreme Court on May 1 held that it can use its extraordinary powers to do “complete justice” under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolve a marriage on the ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown’ of the union. Usually, the apex ...
Serving Armed Forces officers can't be deemed to be Ex-Servicemen from a prospective date, said the Supreme Court while rejecting the claim of three appellants for appointments as Village Development Officers in the Uttar Pradesh State Service. The appellants, even ...