 Before going live with this vision, I was talking to him, he said that he also takes positions in respect of cyber contracts, constitutional aspects as such. The interplay of or rather article 162 and 70 aspects on respect of the government and statutory orders are always a fascinating aspect to be learned as a lawyer as a, as a common man as well. And while we discuss in the today's session regarding the legal limitations of the government and statutory orders, and how they have their sanctity and what is the judicial interference and what is the judicial journey in these aspects. And I'm quite sure that the today's session will take things in a different arena of thought process wherein we all would gain. And despite the fact that Mr. previous gets that we were trying to catch up with him for long, that we have been able to ask him to come on the board today also though it was a hectic shoot. And without taking much time I would request Mr. give that to take things forward. Do you want screen sharing because it seems that you are looking towards the screen sharing or you would like to. I have to screen share. Have you permitted me? Yeah, yeah, because I was able to gauge from your eyeball settings that you wanted something to look at the screen sharing. It's very easy to go for that. Yeah, yeah, give me a minute. Just one minute, sorry. Yeah. Is it visible? Is my screen visible? Yeah, you can just touch the hourglass so that the time it comes forward. Sorry. There's an image of the hourglass, you can touch that. No, it's fine. Yeah. If I touch that, what happens? Yeah, no, it's fine. Okay. Yes, one minute. Yeah, we are able to screen image. Good afternoon. Today I've been asked to speak on legal limitations of government and statutory orders somebody's tripling on this screen. Government and statutory orders, particularly with reference to constitution. Today, my attempt will be not so much to deal with various judgments of the Supreme Court and high courts and give you a host of citations. Since all of you are practitioners, I mean, you must be familiar with those orders, but those judgments and precedents, but I'm basically going to look at the legal limitations on the government orders and statutory orders by which I fundamentally mean the limitations on powers of government and other authorities. We are familiar with the notion that for all rights have limitations and no right is absolute. But we are not so familiar with the notion that all powers are also not absolute. There are various limitations on powers of governmental and other authorities, which we have to be keenly aware as practicing advocates. Now, ordinarily, whenever we think of a limitation on power, we think of a limitation by virtue of fundamental or constitutional rights. For instance, 19 1g confers the right to practice trade or profession, any trade professional occupation of my choice. And 19 sub clause 6 says that there can be reasonable restrictions placed on such a right by law in public interest. So therefore, every right has a limitation inherent in that right itself. So, and people often, when we argue, often the courts say that look at limitations, they are only thinking of rights. But I want to stress here that fundamental rights or constitutional rights are not the only limitations on powers. There are other kinds of limitations on powers, which in here, in the nature of powers themselves, which is what I would like to principally talk about today. Move my screen. Can you hear me? It's not audible Mr. Kiddur. What I spoke so far is not audible. Earlier course. Okay. All right. No, I'm trying to move my screen. I'm going to stop and reshare because I'm not. No, screen sharing has been done. Correct. Right. Okay. So this is a famous saying of Patrick Henry, who was a planter in the United States of America. And jurist at that, he said the Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people. It's an instrument for the people to restrain the government. So every provision of the Constitution, not just the fundamental rights or part three provisions limit the powers of government by their very nature. We'll see how it is shortly. So this is something that we have to keenly be aware that the Constitution and therefore law is there as a restraint on the government rather than restraint on the people. So Constitution regulates the principally regulates of the social relations between states versus persons like article 21 states versus citizens like article 19 state versus state like article 246, which is state as in government legal government and state government as an article 226 regulates the relations between the government and the judiciary. Persons and citizens, if you look at article 15, it regulates relationship between persons and certain provisions of article 15 are comfort only on citizens. Similarly, article 17, for instance, which bans untouchability talks about relationship between all persons, persons versus persons. Social groups versus state, for instance article 2529 talks about religious groups, 30 about religious and linguistic minorities. Social groups versus social groups, social groups versus persons and so on. So Constitution does not merely regulate the relationship between the state and the government or the state and the people. That is a fallacy which many lawyers have or at least many law students have. So first we must look at these provisions and find that it is not merely a document for regulating the relationship between people and the state, but also a document which regulates relationship between people and people, citizens, non-citizens, social groups, social groups, etc. So if you look historically, there was a relationship between state, society and law. I'll come back to the screen if you, many of you may be familiar with the social contract theory of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Now Hobbes and Locke said that the state was not present as soon as human beings came on earth. When human beings came to earth for a very long period in history, probably prehistory, they had what is called as a state of nature, where there was no law, there was no government and according to Hobbes, such a society was short, brutish and nasty. According to Locke and Rousseau, there was some order in the state of nature prior to the existence of state or government, but by and by there was conflict, that's what Locke and Rousseau said. And they said because of this, people realized that if there is no controlling authority or a sovereign ruling over them, there would be disorder in that people would fight amongst themselves which is harmful to the larger good and also that since they lived in clans and tribes at that time, from a defense against external enemies was needed and they therefore invested power in a sovereign and told him or her that you can rule us and we surrender our liberties to you so that you protect us internally from internal enemies and from external enemies. That was what was propounded as social contract and social contract was believed to be the origin of the state. And that is why when you make a pact with the state, so therefore, for instance, you can also visualize our Indian constitution as a social contract between the people and the state. In doing so, Locke however and Rousseau and Locke went a little further than Hobbes and said, people did not surrender all their liberties. There are certain natural rights like the right to life, right to property and so on which are in here in human beings by birth and therefore in this contract, those rights were not surrendered. In fact, the sovereign is bound also to protect the natural rights of the people. Now, going back to the previous slide, looked at in this fashion, before social contract, what was the theory? The divine right theory held the field before social contract. Social contract came about as a theory in the 17th century. Before that, the theory of the state was divine right theory. It was popularized in India by several sages, but in the West by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, who said that the king had a divine right to rule because the king's law was nothing but a law of God. So therefore, if you disrespect king, you will disrespect God. At that time, since religious power was heavy among the people, people thought that to disobey the king would be disobeying God and therefore the king had not only military power but also had an ideological power and some kind of spiritual power. And that is why in the Christian kingdom, Pope had a lot of control and most kings in Europe bowed down to the pope and did not disobey the pope's papal law or papal decree, so to speak. So before social contract theory came into force and before Renaissance etc., or before the Industrial Revolution if you like, you had a situation where the state and church were closely intertwined. And similarly, you also had a situation where there was a belief that all law that the king made was nothing but an extension of God's law. So before the 17th century, there was a close intertwining between secular law and divine or spiritual law if you like. But by and by, with the Industrial Revolution and with the French Revolution in particular, the law separated from, secular law separated from religious law and even king became separated from the church. You all must have read about Martin Luther and Henry IV and so on, how they rebuilt against the pope and the Anglican church was set up. In India, for instance, I don't think we had such a movement at all. In India, for a very long time, religion and law were intertwined like the Manusmiti and though there were operative practices, the caste system and certain superstitions which were in. There was no church state division for a long time till the British came in with their Government of India Act of 1919 and then subsequent laws and then our constitution of course separated the church and the state, though that there is a certain blurring in the current scenario. Now from social contract came in the concept of rule of law. So what was most important about rule of law was that if you see the first definition of law, law is the command of the sovereign is the first definition of law. Now, which was given by Austin, but if you see the rule of law, it says King is not the author of law. Law has a law has an existence and source which is independent of this King. And as democracy as a form of government developed from monarchy and oligarchy, you had people being the source, you know, popular sovereign and they making laws through their representatives. So source of law was the people themselves, people themselves were the source of law. And the other thing is it is not nearly people who are subject to law, but the King himself or the rulers themselves, whether it's the Prime Minister or the Chief Justice or the Election Commissioner, all are subject to law. So that is the notion which began the concept of legal powers or legal limitations on powers of state and other authorities. So this is a historical background which is very important to understand how the state and law freed themselves from religion and how it was understood as a social contract. And when once it was understood as a social contract was shown of any religion, but actually it's about the consent of the government or we have ourselves consented and therefore we must respect law. And then it refined itself into democracy and the rule of law where law is understood not as the command of the sovereign in the, you know, 17th to 19th century sense, but law was understood as the consent of the government because law is made by the parliament and state legislatures which consists of our representatives, people whom we have chosen to make law for us. And this entire process is regulated by the constitution. This I have already covered why I find secularism very important to emphasize here is that secularism is often understood as, you know, pandering to the minorities. One cannot blame this impression because certain political parties will use secularism an opportunistic way to make minorities as roadbanks. But in any case secularism in fact has freed many people. Since law freed itself from religion, it freed itself from religious dogma and superstition. For instance, widow remarriage was unheard of in ancient India. But thanks to secularism, women of this country who are widowed continue to lead lives of dignity and are not abandoned in the Grindavan or other places. Sati was abolished, dowry provision was abolished, untouchability was abolished. All these are aspects of secularism. So therefore, many Hindus benefited from secularism rather than minorities. But because of the politically opportunistic use of secularism, it is swinging the other way. And if you look at the French Revolution, then the French Revolution was one of the reasons why French Revolution came was that the King collected, you know, one third of the agricultural produce as tax. And the church also produces collected pipe, one tenth of the produce. And together between the church and between the King and the church, the common presentry and the common people felt very oppressed and they were really leading miserable and poor lives. Whereas there were three estates which advised the King. One was called estate of nobles. Second was estate of clergy or estate of priests. Third was estate of commons, which was mostly traders. But the estate of nobles and estate of kings were more powerful and the King readily heard them. One of the demands of the French Revolutionaries or the leaders of the French Revolution was, or the common people who were, you know, part of the French Revolution was that the estates, that is, the estate of noble and estate of clergy should be merged with the estate of commons and nobles and nobly royals and the clergy, that is, the priests should not have special rights and special privileges. That was one of the demands of the French Revolution. So that is why when the cry of liberty, equality and fraternity was raised in the French Revolution, it was not merely against the power of the King. It was also against the power of nobility and also against the power of the church. That is the spiritual power also. So the French Revolution subsequently American War of Independence and subsequent revolutions and in India, the nationalist freedom for struggle was looking at not merely political independence but were also looking at social independence by which it meant not merely freedom from the King or from the British but also freedom from hunger, freedom from religious operation, freedom from social evils, freedom for social operation, freedom from superstition and so on. That is why if you look at the constitution, particularly fundamental duties, they talk about this inquiry, spirit of inquiry, encouraging scientific spirit and spirit of humanism. So these are aspects which we cannot forget as the genealogy of the limitations on power. Now let us come more directly to what we are talking about, which is limitations on powers of state. If all of you know about separation of powers, this is a common article which we readily understand. 50 talks about separation of powers between legislative power, judicial power and executive power. Lawyers, practicing lawyers know that this is not a watertight compartment. For instance, we have delegated legislation made by the government, which is actually law made by the government, which is principally the executive. But the legislature, any law, if you look at, for instance, the Food Safety and Standards Act, that act confers the power on central government to frame certain rules. So who FSSA rules are framed by the government? So though they have law, legislative power, that is delegated legislation which the executive branch leads and it is permissible and perfectly constitutional. Similarly, when the collector, for instance, is awarding compensation in land acquisition cases or hearing objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, then what happens is that the collector is exercising quasi-judicial powers. So therefore, the very nature of such powers is more judicial than executive. Collector is an executive officer, but he exercises judicial powers. So therefore, that is also permitted by law. So the notion of separation of powers is not so watertight. For instance, the High Court, for instance, makes appointments of officers. High Court makes appointments of district judges. That is an executive power. So judiciary also wields powers which are of executive nature. Judiciary, for instance, under Article 227, frames rules and therefore it's exercising quasi-legislative powers. So therefore today, when we are talking about separation of powers, we are not talking about watertight separate organs exercising each of these three categories of power, but we are talking about checks and balances. More we will come to this is very important for our understanding because then we look at the power conferred by a statute or a power exercised by any government or any other authority, then it is important for us to understand what is the nature of that power. Is it a quasi-judicial power? Is it a ministerial power? Is it an executive power which does not affect the civil rights of people? Is it a quasi-judicial power or a legislative power? Yes, judiciary cannot legislate. Legislature also cannot pass judgments in the guise of law. We will come to that. That's called the use of a tender. Although the speaker does under the 10th schedule exercise judicial quasi-judicial power when he is debarring defectors. So this is something to be kept in mind. More complex than separation of powers is the notion of division of powers. For instance, if you look at the constitutional scheme of division of powers, division of powers is vertical. Separation of powers is horizontal, division of powers is vertical. The powers vested in the central government and the powers vested in the union, the constitution does not use the word central, center, and the powers vested in the state. And now under 243G, part nine of the constitution, we have a third tier of government which is the Panchayat District Panchayat and Panchayat Union. So therefore, there have been devolution of powers in favor of those bodies also. Let us look at the devolution of powers in the three categories. If you look at legislative power, article 245 and article 246 are important. Article 245 says that the union government can frame laws. On the parliament can frame laws for the territory of India while the state can frame laws for the territory within the state. And however, it is made clear that the parliament, no parliamentary law will be invalid on the ground that it has extraterritorial operation. Suppose there are certain provisions in any law which seems to suggest that they're in high seas. High seas is not part of the territory of India. If there is a Coast Guard Act and which operate which empowers Coast Guard to excite certain powers in high seas, you cannot invalidate it on the ground that article 245 does not permit the union to legislate beyond the territory of India. Similarly, article 246 of the constitution confirms certain legislative powers from the union parliament and certain legislative powers from the state assembly. So it has in the seven schedule, the union list on which only the parliament can legislate. There's a state list in which only the state legislature can legislate like agriculture for instance. The reason farm laws have come into criticism because there's an argument that the parliament does not have legislative competence to pass these laws since agriculture is a state subject. Now, then you have 243G. Under 243G, the state government or state legislature is empowered to frame law for the devaluation of certain powers to local bodies like panchayats, panchayat union district panchayat, town panchayats and municipalities. And the specific no object of that power is to make them organs of self governance. So the power should be such as to strengthen their powers in a manner that they are able to govern themselves. And secondly, they are also empowered to frame laws so as to enable framing of plans for economic development and for social justice and also to implement policies for economic development and social justice. So these are the two aims of devaluation of powers on local bodies. Why I am stressing on this is the nature of the power and the extent of the power and the content of the power is determined by not only the nature of the power but also the object of power, the purpose for which they have been invested with that power. In the case of Article 243G, it's very clear whatever power you devolve, you have to devolve in a direction that makes them institutions of self governance. Whatever powers are vested in those local bodies, they have to be exercised for clearly two purposes. One is economic development of that region over which they are ruling. Second is ensuring social justice, there is equity among all social groups in that area. Whether it is no minorities and majorities, whether it may be linguistic minorities, it may be religious minorities or different community groups or different classes between industries and agriculture and so on. There should be some harmony and equity. That is what the local bodies are required to do and that is the purpose of devaluation of powers under 243G. Next we come to executive power. What are the constitutional provisions? Article 73 talks about, says that the executive power of the union is coterminous or co-extensive with the legislative power. Which means in all matters where the union has legislative power, it has executive power. Which means it has power over subjects in the union list and in concurrent lists. Whereas the state under article 162 has executive power only in respect of matters in the state list. Now 73, so for instance if it is defense, let us say in the matter of defense there is no particular, without any power external effect. If there is no particular law, yet the government can issue orders unsupported by law because it has executive powers. One of the leading case on this is Ram Javaya Kapoor case which I will come to specifically in 1955 when the Supreme Court said in that case it was the certain notifications were issued by the Punjab government by we call correct. Controlling textbooks. The certain six textbook publishers came to court saying that these notifications are uncontrolled by any statute. Without any law they are affecting our right to publish, etc. with published textbooks which is a part of our right to trade and therefore there is an instrument under 19-1G. So the Supreme Court after examining that claim said under 19-1G you have a right to trade but you don't have a right to publish textbooks in a particular manner. That is not your right and therefore they held that there is no variation of 19-1G. Once they held that they said that since there is no fundamental right interfering with this function, a notification can be exercised under executive power related to article 73. You cannot and all government orders and all government action need not be supported by a statute unless it affects fundamental rights. And in that way they said that the government can do anything outside a statute as long as it does not interfere with rights of people and the manner of implementation is also fair and reasonable. Otherwise it would fall fall of article 14 of the constitution. So identical provision is section article 162 which compares the executive power of the state. So in the matter of agriculture or in the matter of agriculture which is in the state list, it is the government, it is the state government which has power and even without any law certain policies can be implemented, certain government orders can be issued and they are being regularly issued and no government order can be challenged on the ground that it is not supported by any statute or law. What is 77? 77 and 166 are interesting provisions. 77 says that the president can frame rules for the exercise of the business government and may allocate different activities of the government to different ministries. So therefore whether a particular activity comes under the agriculture ministry or it should come under agro-based industry or it should come under industry set ministry will be decided by the rules of business framed under article 77. Similarly article 166 empowers the governor to frame rules for distribution of business of the government. That is why if you look at some of the cases like the Madras Bar Association, Salem Bar Association case, Supreme Court and also Madras Bar Association case, Supreme Court found that certain tribunals were under the commerce ministry and Supreme Court criticized that and said that this is a judicial tribunal should be under the law ministry and gave a direction to shift it. So sometimes judiciary also interferes with the rules under framed under article 77 and 166 when it regards such rules as interfering with the independence of judiciary. Next is article 239. Article 239 has to do with the union territories. Article 239 says union territories can be administered by the president through an administrator appointed by him. Article 239A empowers the parliament to frame laws for creating legislatures in union territories. Recently in the national capital territory of Delhi, for instance, there has been a big tug of war where Supreme Court clarified that it is the elected government which is supreme union territory. The Lebanon governor cannot do whatever he pleases and for every silly reason he cannot disagree and excise parts of a popular government. Recently the central government or the parliament amended the government of national territories act to empower the Lebanon governor to differ on any issue with the elected government. And in the event of the conflict, they have declared that, you know, contained all notions of democracy and constitutional notions of fairness that are separation of powers that the Lebanon governor once he disagrees, it's the Lebanon governor whose opinion will prevail over the elected government. There's of course a challenge pending in the Supreme Court on that and hopefully it will be resolved soon. Then you have the judicial powers. What are the judicial articles dealing with judicial powers? Article 32, all of us know the power of the Supreme Court to ensure its to enforce fundamental rights or to prevent violation of fundamental rights where citizens can or all people can go directly to the Supreme Court without going to any of the lower courts. Article 131 deals with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In case there is a dispute between two states or between the union government and the state or between one state and another state or between, you know, the union government and two or more states, they can file suits directly in the Supreme Court. That is the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court. Article 133, 134, 135 deal with the powers of Supreme Court, appellate powers of Supreme Court where against orders of the High Court in administrative civil and criminal jurisdiction provided there is a certificate issued by the High Court under article 134A that there is an issue of public importance, legal issue of public importance which arises in a particular case. If a certificate is given, an automatic appeal is provided under 132 to 134, sorry, 135. Now, as far as 136 is concerned, if a certificate under article 134A is not issued, that is the High Court refuses to grant a certificate that it's a fit case for appeal, that there is a significant legal issue of public importance involved in the case, then we can file cases directly in the Supreme Court with a leave to appeal. 136 enables you to file an appeal provided the Supreme Court grants leave, understand that there is a case which involves a legal issue of public importance and admits that case and most of the petitions today are filed under 136. Then you have 141 say, under 141 the law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all authorities. 142 has special powers for Supreme Court where to do justice where in under certain circumstances Supreme Court can also overcome or go against established law and for fully ensuring justice in a given case and such a judgment is not binding precedent under 141. Article 225 to 227 have to do with judicial powers of the High Court under article 225 all powers previously existing in the High Courts before the commencement of the Constitution, best in the Constitution, best in the High Court and it's a court of record and it has the power to punish for contempt also under 225. 226 confers power on the High Court to issue rites to any person or authority and in certain cases to the government also for any purpose. It is vaguely worded for any purpose and it has been interpreted that the power to issue rites under article 226 is widened that the power to issue rites under 32 because under 32 you can only go for enforcement of your fundamental rights. Whereas under 226 you can go for enforcement of any statutory or other rights. For instance, if the food let's say under land acquisition act your land is acquired without issuing a proper notice under section 4 or a proper declaration under section 6 or issuing publication as contemplated by the provisions of the land acquisition act not withstanding that there may not be a violation of your fundamental rights. You can still go to the High Court for the violation of the statutory rights under land acquisition act and for violation of the procedures and for the collectors having exercised powers in violation of the limitations on their powers under the land acquisition act. Mind you article 300A is not a constitutional right, is not a fundamental right though it's a right under the constitution. Similarly, there may be certain statutes dealing with certain issues pertaining to rights of citizens, which may not go to the extent of being a fundamental right, but it may still be why fall foul of the statute or statutory limitations placed on various authorities and in all such cases one can file a red petition. One can also file a red petition to challenge an action saying that it does know it is unsupported by statute or violation of a statute or even though it's an executive power, such executive power is exercised in an unfair manner so as to influence on my right under article 14 of the Constitution which requires every administrative authority to function in a fair and reasonable manner. Then 227 is an interesting power. It is the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals vested in the High Court in the territory of the state to which its authority extends. So therefore, for instance, the Madras High Court exercises jurisdiction over the state of Tamil Nadu and the union territory of Pondicherry or Puthicherry as it is called now. And Puthicherry has three regions, one in Puthicherry in Tamil Nadu, Mahi in Kerala, that is within Kerala and Yanom in all the places. So over all these territories, Supreme Court can exercise the power of superintendence under article 227. What is the power of superintendence? The power of superintendence is not merely judicial power. It is the power which has, it's a judicial power, executive and legislative power also. It's a kind of plenary power which is available to the election commission under article 329 of the Constitution. One minute, let me just confirm. Article 324, sorry, article 324 confirms the power of superintendence over elections to the election commission, which is again a plenary power. Election commission under article 329 has legislative power, executive power and also judicial or quasi-judicial power. Under the symbols order, it can pass an order after hearing the parties that if the party is split into two or three factions, then the election commission decides to whom the symbol or the flag or other, you know, signage of the party belongs to. So those kind of disputes it in fact adjudicates and no court has power to do adjudicate. And once the election is declared, all authorities come under the power of the election commission. The election commission can decide who can be transferred against whom this reaction can be taken and so on. Coming back to the High Court under article 227, High Court exercises strike powers under article 227 over judicial authorities, that is courts and tribunals. So therefore, the consumer forum, though it is a tribunal and its functions under the, you know, consumer affairs ministry, as far as superintendents over consumer courts are concerned, it's vested in the High Court under 227. Under 227 class 2 enables High Court to frame rules for the practice which are not contrary to any statute or statutory rules. Often rules of practice are framed, criminal rules of practice, civil rules of practice, etc., are framed by High Courts in exercise of the power centre article 227. Often when there is no appeal or revision provided and there is a law for instance, there is no revision against an interlocketry order and there is no appeal in respect of all interlocketry, all interim orders. Order 43 provides only for appeal against certain orders and not against certain other orders. So under such circumstance, I mean affected litigants or parties can approach the High Court under article 227 if they can show manifest injustice or lack of jurisdiction. There are certain standards subject to which High Court, even though it cannot be approached under 226, can be approached under 227. For instance, against actions of DRT, for instance, sometimes we are able to appeal under, sorry, file a revision under 227, DRAT. Now 233, 234 and 235 are interesting provisions which vest, execute and legislate powers in the High Court over the subordinate judiciary. Under 233, High Court appoints the district judges, under 234, the governor of the state appoints the other judicial officers, subordinate judiciary below district judges in consultation with the state public service commission and in consultation with the High Court. So ultimately without the concurrence of the High Court, the governor cannot just make appointment of judges. So 235 vest the control of the subordinate judiciary under the High Court, on the High Court. So therefore, High Court decides how even a court officer needs to be appointed, a stenographer needs to be appointed. Then whether they need to be, if there is any, let us say appeal examiner who abuses his powers, then disciplinary action can be taken by the High Court against him. So the officials of the subordinate judiciary and also the officials of the High Court come under the administrative and supervisory and disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The government cannot build such kind of jurisdiction over them. And these are provisions which protect the independence of the judiciary as much as the other provisions that we talk about Article 50 or Article 226 and so on. So therefore, what are the limitations on power? To understand the limitations of powers, we need to look at one, the source of power. Now, where is this power coming from? If it is a power, for instance, if it is, let us say a new drug is approved by the Drug Control Authority. That is a power derived from the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or under some order issued under some provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. And such a provision will provide for who is the authority who can pass such an order approving a new drug? What are the procedures that he has to follow? What is the extent of powers? Suppose he rejects the license for a new drug. Is he supposed to give a hearing? What kind of hearing? Under what circumstances can he give? All those are defined in the statute, which is the source of power. Sometimes the constitution can be the source of power. Article 73 is the source of executive power to the union government. Article 226 is the source of power for issuing rates on the high court. So there are certain powers which are traceable directly to Article 73, which is the executive power. Article 77 enables the president to issue pardons in certain cases. So that is traceable to the constitution. The constitution is the source of power. Now rights and powers are mutual. We all know about how rights and powers are mutual limitations on one another. No state authority or even other authority can exercise a right of power in a manner that impringes on any constitutional or statutory right of a citizen. So for instance, if Article 21 confers the right to personal liberty, that no person can be no person's life or personal liberty can be deprived, except no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. So if you are arresting a person or detaining a person, it should be by a law and there will be a procedure established by law. Supreme Court in AK Gopalan's case in 1961 held that it is enough if there is a procedure prescribed by a legislation. In Menaka Gandhi and RC Cooper's case, it was argued and upheld by Supreme Court that the procedure established by law is not a procedure prescribed by a legislation. It is a procedure which should be fair and reasonable and it was held that it should be established, not just prescribed. Established means over a period of time, by common notions of civilization, by common notions of democracy and constitutional governance. That's what Supreme Court said and law does not merely mean a piece of legislation passed by an enactment, but the larger body of law symbolizing which is the content of a constitutional democracy. That is what Supreme Court said and overruled the limited reading of the Article 21 in AK Gopalan's case. One more limited reading in AK Gopalan's case was that a law cannot be... If you are claiming a right under Article 21, you cannot claim a right under Article 19-1G. Each fundamental right is a particular compartment. So if you are claiming under 21, you can't claim under 19-1G. What was the reason for claiming 19-1G was Supreme Court argued in AK Gopalan's case that by preventively detaining him, he was deprived of his right to free speech and expression because he was a union leader who used to deliver lectures and was part of many unions. And his right under 19-3 to form associations was in print. That is what he argued. And therefore he said once you imprint those rights, you can only have reasonable restrictions passed by a reasonable law. So since Article 21 does not contain the word reasonable, Supreme Court refused at that stage in 1950 to import reasonableness in Article 21. Though subsequently in RC Cooper's case and Menaka Gandhi, they said even under 21, it has to be a reasonable law. But they said since there's a law which is relatable to Article 22 under Article 22-3, it provides for preventive detention and that there should be an advisory body which approves that detention within three months and that advisory body should be constituted by the parliament. In fact, at that stage he was detained under the defence of India rules which was not framed by the parliament but by a pre-constitutional law. But by a narrow reading of the fundamental rights, Supreme Court upheld his detention and later when banks were nationalised in RC Cooper's case, when he argued that it fell foul of Article 30 at that time which was a fundamental right, now it is not and Article 19-1G as right as a banker and the state argued that once you seek 30 which only says a property can be deprived without, no property can be deprived without the authority of law, you cannot rely on 19-1G and Supreme Court said its holding in the AK Copalins case was wrong and one can argue violation of multiple rights. So therefore you see this is the way in which law has law and jurisprudence of rights has expanded in the context of the interplay between rights and powers and the mutual relations on one another. Next you have statutory, many most of the powers which are exercised by governmental and other authorities around us are statutory in nature. So now one of the, I mean ordinarily all of us challenge such laws on the ground that they are violation of principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice as you know are broadly two. One, audioliterum partum that is no person can be you know condemned without being heard, which means if you intrude on any particular rights or cause hardship to any citizen or even a non-citizen you have to grant him a hearing before passing an order adverse to him. If not that order is a nullity and it can be washed. Second is that no person can be a judge of his own past which means if a person is involved or if some close relative is involved in that then he cannot be a judge of his own past and on that ground too if a judge if he does not recuse himself it can be washed on the ground that it violates the second principle of natural justice. Next you have executive, an executive, now an executive often though an officer is an executive officer he may exercise a quasi-judicial power like I was giving you the example of a collector under the Land Acquisition Act or a food inspector under the Food Safety and Standards Act or a drug controller under the Drugs and Pathematics Act or even a resolution professional under the IBC, a resolution professional is a private party but there are certain powers that he exercises he gets control over the board of the company he can determine claims from financial creditors and operational creditors under the IBC for those of you who are familiar, he is a private person who exercises statutory powers so if he exceeds the limitations imposed on his powers by statute that can be washed by for instance in the case of IBC the adjudicating authority is the National Company Law Tribunal or the NCIT so the NCIT can overrule a certain action of the RP on the ground that it violates the limitations on his power. Now most important is bills of attainder we do not come across much in India but it is important that is if a legislature passes a law which amounts to a judgment then it is called the bill of attainder suppose a legislature passes a law tomorrow the parliament says all people who practice Buddhism must be imprisoned okay now apart from the unfairness and you know unjustness of such a law it is a judgment in the guise of law because you are straight away imposing imprisonment which is a judicial function on a particular class of people on the ground on a particular class of people in the guise of passing a law so in the guise of passing a law you have to restrict yourself to legislative power similarly that is why often if you find certain you know laws for instance the Unlawful Activity Prevention Act passes you know denies Bay and except if the accused can show that he is not guilty of the offense and at that state the accused does not even have a copy of the FIR or if he has a copy of FIR he does not have access to the material you know that the prosecution has without except to the extent that that material is furnished as a copy in the counter in the bail application and possibly he may have his remand application and certain limited documents now in effect it is almost a judgment of you know remanding the petitioner without the records to bail and it can be argued that it is a bill of attainder so when the statutory orders are passed or even you know non statutory orders are passed one needs to look at apart from the source of power the content of power what exactly is the power given to him or to her for instance if it is article 24 of CRPC which empowers the government to appoint public prosecutor from a list made by the collector after he consults the district judge okay now all these are the content of the power is appointment of public prosecutors nature of power is power of appointment which is an executive power it is not a quasi judicial power but by the very nature you are selecting from a range of eligible candidates and you are creating a list of candidates from whom which is a pool for appointment of public prosecutors so the nature of power being appointment though executive has a certain amount of discretion in it and a selection process which has been ruled to be an objective process you need to examine whether one is killed, how many cases he has argued all these material considerations you have to weigh for the purpose of a selection process which though an executive power has elements of quasi judicial aspects to it so therefore if it is not fair and reasonable procedure it may be struck down extent of power so in the guy the extent of power is appointment of public prosecutor under article 24 the appointment is made by the collector in consultation with the district judge so therefore without consulting the district judge he cannot just make powers he cannot make an appointment or a recommended appointment similarly the district judge himself cannot appoint public prosecutors because that his power is only recommendatory and usually that recommendatory has been held to be, segmentation has been held to be binding because a district judge is more likely to know about advocates practicing in courts than the district collector then site of power, site of power is on whom the power is conferred or on which body the power is conferred if a boy, if for instance let us say Sebi passes an order which is, which prohibits an act on the ground that it is anti-competitive then it can be argued that Sebi cannot exercise such a power because the site of the power to declare a practice as anti-competitive competition commission then procedure, see for you may have that power you may exercise it within the limitations prescribed by law in the manner required by law but the procedure for exercise the law may require you to, we will see examples a little later the law may require you to give a notice it may say a 14 days notice or it may say reasonable notice it may say you take duration post-digital notice hearing can be given so whatever procedure is prescribed that must be followed in Mohinder Singh's case Supreme Court has held that it was tattooed there is a power on a particular person or authority and says that it should be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that manner and or not at all so a power exercise contrary to the procedure on the basis of which it should be exercised will be invalid that is what Supreme Court has said in Mohinder Singh's case and a host of other cases now suppose the law does not prescribe any procedure for instance under the passport tract earlier in 1970s the passport tract the government was allowed to impound the passport of any person without hearing and the passport of Meraka Gandhi was imposed was impounded in 1978 after the Janathak Party government came to power defeating Indira Gandhi after she declared an emergency and immediately the Janathak Party impounded Meraka Gandhi's passport so Meraka Gandhi argued that it was violated to article 14 and 9 and according to article 21 included the right to go abroad and this was held in some certain Kumar's case earlier to Meraka Gandhi's case and she said that this was violated over fundamental rights Supreme Court argued by the passport authority that the passport tract did not contemplate any notice or hearing for the purpose of impounding passport and therefore the passport authority said I have complied with this statute but Supreme Court said whenever any law does not prescribe its own procedure then you have the authority has to adopt a procedure which is fair and just and reasonable and read the principles of natural justice into article 14 Supreme Court said that equality before law and equal protection of laws guaranteed in article 14 comprehended within itself the principles of natural justice and therefore any statutory power exercise contrary to principles of natural justice although not specifically provided in the statute will still be invalid so principles of natural justice have to be read into every statute it is the what do you say the presumption is that parliament would not have thought of conferring a power in violation of principles of natural justice which should be read into the statute then there is a conditions of exercise of power for instance the power to declare emergency under the constitution is a power vested under certain conditions there should be a financial emergency or a political emergency in the absence of such an emergency one cannot declare emergency similarly land acquisition act for passing a declaration that the land vested in the government under section 6 section 4 notification should have been issued publication should have been issued in 2 newspapers and in the local area and so on and if you do not fulfill those conditions the declaration under article section 6 of the land acquisition act will be invalid then what are the circumstances for exercising such a power whether it is an extraordinary power as far as nature and extent of power is concerned one has to look at what is the power is it an emergency power for instance there is a power under most panchayat acts and urban local bodies act testing the power of removal of the panchayat president or district panchayat union president on the district collector under certain circumstances now often collectors were exercising power as if he was their peon or some subordinate employee but that was the power where they were given the power to remove an elected person who was exercising sovereign powers under the constitution so this bring quote held that in such a case he is not an employee you have to exercise it with new recognition and only in circumstances where he is abusing so much of his power that it is resulting in defeating democracy that he can be removed in fact in one case I argue that just like article 376 and sorry 356 where you are imposing president's rule unless there is a constitutional breakdown in that particular panchayat you cannot remove the panchayat president so these are certain areas which certain issues which come in when you are looking at limitations of orders even statutory orders let us I am giving you three examples because how much more time do I have how much more time can I take how much time do you think I may take another 15 minutes but if you ask me to shorten it that's fine because we are not getting much questions so I think the insights would be enough because it all correlates sometimes you are getting lot of questions on the chat box you feel that questions have to be taken across once you are explaining the extent so I think it will be suffice okay just one minute okay now you look at section 33 of the stamp act under section 33 of the stamp act the power of impounding of any instrument which is not duly stamped is conferred on some officers if you look at subsection 1 every person having by law or by consent of parties authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a public office except an officer of the police for whom any instrument chargeable in its opinion with duty is produced or comes in the performance of this function shall if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped impound the same let us look at the various elements in section 33 so every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence so therefore a judge for instance has authority to receive evidence by virtue of the evidence act or a tribunal by virtue of certain provisions of let us say if it is an administrative under the administrative tribunal act if it is the national company law tribunal under the national company law tribunal under the companies act okay and under the IBC has power to receive evidence or by consent of parties can you can anyone state an example for an authority who has the right to receive evidence under the consent of parties can look at an arbitrator for instance an arbitrator there is power from an arbitration agreement yeah correct arbitrator so an arbitrator has the power under arbitration agreement so by consent of parties here and if a document or every person in charge of a public office except an officer of the police so therefore it has to be an officer who is empowered by law to receive evidence or an officer who is authority by consent of parties like an arbitration agreement to receive evidence and third every person in charge of public office so if he is holding a public office it may be a collector it may be a district municipal commissioner or it may be the food inspector who is holding a public office but not a police officer mind you okay if he is a police officer though he is holding a public office he does not have the power to impose instruments before whom any instrument chargeable in opinion the duty is produced so if there is an instrument which is chargeable with duty under the stamp act and it appears that it such an instrument is not duty is not the stamp impound the same so if any document which is under if there is an agreement which actually is stamped with the under the piece but is stamped only 50 rupees or 10 rupees or not at all stamp then it is the duty of this person to impound the impound that document and for that person for that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him therefore he cannot just impound he has to examine that instrument you know with what object in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp or the value and description required by law in force in India so under the stamp act or in any other act if it is required to be stamped or value whether it is of that value when such instrument was executed or first executed so therefore if it was executed in 1990 and he is looking at it in 2019 he cannot look at the value today he has to look at the value in 1990 or if a document was executed and then there was further execution in two different dates it was executed in 1990 and there is an endorsement of it in 2001 let us say he has to see whether it was stamped when it was first executed not the second endorsement but there are various limitations on the powers so when we are examining the validity of the exercise of a power if we read a statute carefully then the limitations on such a power is evident similarly if you look at section 52 of the registration act it says duties of the registration officers the day, hour and place of presentation the photographs and fingerprint suffix under section 32a and signature of every person presenting a document for registration and endorse on every such document at the time of presenting it a receipt for such document shall be given by the registration officer to the person presenting the set if you look at these duties these duties are ministerial duties it clearly says what the registrar should do as soon as somebody presents a document for registration take photographs, fingerprints, signature and then give a receipt etc so all these positions which you see section subsection 2 all such books shall be authenticated at such intervals and in such manner is from time to time prescribed by the inspector general so this power to determine what are the books in which under which it should be recorded and what intervals should be authenticated should be authenticated at the end of every day or every 3 hours or every week all that should be prescribed by the inspector general mind you suppose it is prescribed in a G.O then it is invalid because that power is is vested on the inspector general and the government cannot exercise that power just because an authority is a higher authority that authority cannot exercise a statutory power vested in a lower authority for instance the Revenue Recovery Act vested powers on the collector the collector is subordinate to the joint secretary of Revenue but when the law vests the power of Revenue Recovery only on the collector or such officers as he may delegate you know usually that power is delegated to a task that a joint secretary although he is superior to the power to the collector cannot exercise such a power just as Supreme Court cannot exercise the power of Brits under article 226 it can only exercise similarly a district judges powers cannot be exercised by the high court so these are very important to understand when we are looking at limitations of power and powers of statutory authority we look at Food Safety Standards Act section 31 talks about licensing and registration of food business no person shall commence or carry on any food business except under the license there is also an exception to this which says it shall not apply to petty manufacturer or who himself manufactures and sells any article of food on a petty retailer, hawker etc. this is given for exception is given to roadside vendors 3. any person desires to commence or carry on any food business shall make an application for grant of a license to the designated office in such manner containing such particulars and fees as may be prescribed by regulation so the license can be given only by the designated officer it cannot be given by another officer who may be superior to a designated officer much less an interior officer what a designated officer on receipt of application can do he may either grant the license or after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to grant a license granting a license is a straightforward process so if he decides to refuse it he has to give an opportunity to the applicant as to why he should the license should not be refused and he has to record reasons if he refuses why he is refusing it is why it works so and so you know provision of the food safety standards act or regulations framed under food safety standards act for food to be for running a hotel you require ventilation of this nature you may require that there has to be proper drainage and on inspection the food inspector find that there is no proper drainage facility for this building etc ok if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of public health so therefore a drainage facility in the interest of public health but if he decides on a ground that is not related to public health he says there is a school nearby that is not related to school public health ok or if he says that there are many other eateries nearby that is not a ground of public health so therefore he has to deny it on a ground related to public health he has to make available to the applicant a copy of the order so it is not enough that he pass the order on file he has to give a copy of the order to the applicant so that the applicant can go higher if he requires desires please then there is a proof also that if the license is not issued within 2 months from the date of making the application or the application is not rejected the applicant may start his food business after expiry of the period of 2 months and in such a case the applicant shall not refuse to issue a license but if he considers necessary issue an improvement notice under section 32 and follow procedures in that regard so beyond 2 months if he does not pass any orders on the application then the applicant can commence his food business and thereafter his application for license cannot be rejected but if he finds that there is no proper drainage system he can issue a notice under section 32 saying please ensure that there is an improvement in your drainage system please install a proper drainage system please ensure that there is adequate windows there are only 3 windows see that there are 4 windows and so on so I am coming back to this issue having looked at some provisions of the registration act Indian sand pact and food safety standard act as an example you can look at all these the content of that power nature of power extent or width of that power procedure contemplated this moindarsing case which I was referring to where the supreme court said if the power is conferred by a statute to be exercised in a particular manner which shall be exercised in that manner or not at all conditions of exercise and the circumstances of exercise of power for instance impounding the authority to impound has to be an authority who is empowered to take evidence or an authority who holds a public office so a person who does not hold public office cannot seize an impounded document and it also says a person in public office before whom such a document comes suppose I am going on the road with an unstamped document and there is a tassel who sees that he can't just see it from my hand unless I present it to him he cannot impound it okay government orders need not always be statutory so non-statutory orders I already discussed with you article 73 and 162 and Ram Javya Kapoor's case AR1955 SC 549 where a non-statutory notification regarding printing etc. of text books was upheld by the supreme court saying the width of executive power was as wide as the power legislative power under 246 and all of you know constitutional rights and statutory powers for instance article 265 says no state no tax can be levied or collected without the authority of law so in order to collect GST there has to be a GST law and not only to levied but also to collect it so the law will have to empower specific officers to collect and present the manner in which tax can be collected so therefore constitutional powers it's not only fundamental rights chapter there are various provisions of the constitution which prescribes how certain powers have to be exercised even for it so therefore when we are talking about we the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into sovereign socialist secular democratic republic to serve to secure to all existence justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, etc. it is not only the fundamental rights that guarantee this but all these orders the extent and width of the order the manner in which it should excise the principle of fairness the principle of reasonableness and the principles of natural justice which are inherent in preserving justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Thank you any questions I am willing to take In fact I had never expected that it would be such an elaborate session any public office except an officer of police the public officer with whom he has to deposit the document what he has to do to a particular document under section 33 of the Indian stamp set you are asking a question so I didn't get it sorry please tell me repeat that if any public office except an officer of police the police officer with whom he has to deposit the document what he has to do with that particular document in terms of section 33 of the Indian stamp act in section 33 if he is a competent officer then he has to examine that document check under the stamp act or any act what that document should be the stamp duty payable on such document and if he finds that it is undervalued then he has to give a hearing to that person and if he is convinced that it is undervalued then he or she can impose that document which means basically put a chapa that it is impounded and not return it to the document not return it to the person who gave him that document which means tomorrow that document will be nullified even if it is a title document or a lease document then it will be nullified of course there is a provision for paying penalty and so on and retrieving that document that is a separate provision this is by Selva Kumar in DRT under the RDP act 1993 there is a provision to refund 50% slash 25% of the court fees if the case is settled before the arguments by DRT to the bank slash financial institution but there is no provision to refund court fees paid by the borrower to DRT under the surface act under the bank measures of the borrower is it in my opinion it is unfair and such a provision will have to be challenged I am not sure whether in the Mardya case it was challenged and it was upheld Mardya was only challenged to the effect that it was too exorbitant yeah correct and one can do the same rules then what I gather from Mardya probably it was reduced they said up to 75% correct but I agree that the borrower their court fee has to be refunded but in certain cases they go under the permanent Lokadalat section 22 then they can get it settled in that case under the Lokadalat act they can ask for the refund of the court fees that is one of the aspects which people do normally gather okay this is why Murgusen what is the exact difference between act rules, bylaws, regulations circular notification, notice, publication act is a law passed by the parliament or state legislature rules are generally framed by the central government or state government or whether it's the industrial dispute act industrial dispute act for instance empowers the appropriate government to frame rules to carry out the purpose of that and appropriate government is defined in the case of public sector undertakings and in the case of certain industries which are declared by law to be of national importance or to be regulated in national interest the appropriate government is the central government in other cases it's the state government so the state government has the power to frame rules under the ID act next regulation usually regulations are framed by statutory authority if you take the IBC for instance insolvency and bankruptcy code rules are framed by the government the IBC empowers the IBBI Indian bankruptcy board Indian board of bankruptcy and insolvency I think to frame regulations to regulate procedures it also sometimes empowers judicial bodies to frame their own regulations so generally regulations are subordinate to rules as far as bylaws are concerned generally under society registration act cooperative society registration act etc empowers societies which are registered under the act to frame bylaws at the constitution at the commencement of the society and thereafter to amend bylaws these bylaws are framed by their self-regulatory instruments which are framed by the bodies themselves to govern themselves but naturally they should be compliant with the society registration act or society registration rules in the case of societies circular and notification circular is generally issued by various authorities in order to popularize or to make known some event or some proposal which has been introduced it may be statutory circular in the sense that the law itself may require certain circular or even though law does not contemplate such circular they may be issued for the general benefit and to inform every concerned person of certain events notification again is issued for instance under the lander question act notification has to be issued under section 4 notification usually means something which has to be published and then the person concerned will come to know that my land is going to be acquired so it has to be compliant with the statute for in the lander question act says it should be published into newspapers and so therefore that is the requirement in the case of notification notice all of us know generally it refers to a show cause notice before any you are visited with any civil consequence or a penalty a notice has to be issued and you should be given a reply and thereafter an adverse order can be passed against you notice is the instrument through which principles of natural justice are satisfied sometimes it can only be a notice not a show cause notice may say that before for instance in war time they are requisitioning a property for the use as the purpose of defences may be to provide notice saying at least 3 day notice should be given all our lease agreements and rental agreements say a landlord can inspect the premises with reasonable notice to the tenant so that is notice and in fact many of our rent control act also contains that publication is again a way of making it known so it may say it should be published in the desert or it may say it may be published in the two newspapers having circulation in the state or circulation in the local area and so on so these are the differences that I find what kind of subject matters can be filed under article 246 of the constitution of India in my opinion when fundamental rights are violated one can find say petition under article 226 second when some statutory rights are violated then one can file petitions under article 226 third when any action is taken without any statutory background or statutory source in exercise of executive power but we consider it such an executive action to be to have been undertaken without either in violation of our fundamental or other constitutional rights or in violation of our fair reasonable and just procedure one can go to one can challenge an action under article 226 you are aware that article 226 can be issued in so far as rate of habeas corpus is concerned in the case of illegal imprisonment even by a private party one can issue a rate of habeas corpus under article 226 the court high court has passed but in recent past high courts have held in the andi mupta trust case and in janet jay paul's case andi mupta trust case they are 1989 in the case a private trust did not pay salaries to teachers and closed down the college so the teachers went to the supreme court saying that my I think they went to high court and then went to supreme court saying that my salaries are not given andi mupta trust case has that andi mupta trust that if we are a private trust we are not a state agency we are not state under article 12 we are not also a public sector undertaking or any statutory organization there are no laws or regulations necessitating payment of salary so they can only file a civil suit they cannot file a rate petition supreme court andi mupta trust allowed the claim of the teachers holding that it does not matter the nature of the body is irrelevant nature of duty cast upon that upon that body is relevant what is the duty cast upon such a body has to be a public duty they held that the right to education is a public function ordinarily education has to be a function but a functional state you are exercising in the nature of public function and this private sector is exercising a function which is normally exercised by a public body under such circumstances public functions get attached to you even though you are a private body and sometime under certain circumstances even fundamental rights are enforceable against you for instance article 21 article 21 says no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law it does not refer to state it's a general injunction to look at article 14 it says the state shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of law so article 14 can be enforced only against the state but article 21 can be enforced against the private person for if you look at the Visakha case Visakha in Visakha Supreme Court claim Visakha guidelines observing that the right to a sexual harassment pre workplace is the right to dignity a life with dignity of every woman guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution so therefore all private employees come under a public function when it is the duty to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace so therefore in given cases in fact I find a case in India in Medrasai court where a director a senior manager who took action in the case of sexual harassment of his director to whom he was reporting sexual harassment of a junior employee by director to whom he was reporting was terminated from service actually was reverted from the position of a senior manager to a lower cadre so I filed a petition in the Supreme Court in the High Court against the reduction in rank of that manager and the High Court said it's a private company so I said he was performing a public function of protecting the right under article 21 of the constitution of a subordinate employee and therefore when he is performing a public function he is an officer or he is a statutory officer exising of you know statutory and even constitutional functions and therefore this it is maintainable after listening to my arguments the High Court has admitted that repetition about 6 years ago it has not come up for final hearing the meanwhile the company is trying to compromise with him but this is one example so article 226 is maintainable against the private body also more recently in Janet J. Paul's case. Janet J. Paul was a actually she was my client here but later she went to the Supreme Court she was a teacher teaching genetics and SRM University which is a deemed university dismissed her from service without a proper enquiry so I challenged that and they said a deemed university it's a private university it does not have any public duties so it's not state under article 12 so I argue that in Andy Muktha trust case the Supreme Court held that the expression person other person or other authority does not need to be a person or authority within the meaning of article 12 for instance if a body or person is exising statutory or public functions he may not be state at all but still a 226 can be invoked against him Supreme Court held in that case that it can be issued against the deemed universities because deemed universities are exercising public functions even after TMA PI the things they have evolved now they say they go to the education channels I don't know whether how it has happened in Madras sorry TMA PI it says educational education in fact in Janet J. Paul's case it was argued that it can go only to educational tribunals which are not constituted and they tried to tell the government the court that you direct the constitutional educational tribunal Supreme Court said no we reassure it it's a duty of the government to even today educational tribunals has mandated that the TMA PI foundation case has not been constituted it is sad that no teacher is taking the government's courts for contempt we had our judgment of SG school by Justice Hemant Gupta the then judge out here who is right now in the Supreme Court thereafter it was constituted two issues were there whether they said actually you will go under the payment of gratitude act rest of the act you will go before the education tribunals and ultimately it was held that it was asked by the state why you are not acted upon by the TMA PI oh I see where in Haryana is it? Punjab Haryana judgment that is by the SG school's name oh I see they had challenged that the payment of gratitude is a special act they will have to the school management had challenged to the effect that under the payment of gratitude act since gratitude at that point of time it should go before the payment of gratitude for the rest of the aspects they said in terms of TMA PI you have to go to the education tribunals okay the last question what kind of subject matters can be filed under article 227 227 those which cannot be filed under 226 if first it has to be an order not of an administrative authority it has to be an order of a court or a judicial authority so it is only in case of judicial proceedings not under quasi-judicial proceedings or executive orders that one can go under 227 second supreme court I mean high court has placed its own you know under 226 and 227 you cannot move the high court if there is an alternative remedy if there is no alternative remedy and the order is so observed that it offends or shocks the judicial conscience or causes the manifest injustice or inherently without jurisdiction then you can move under article 227 somebody has asked whether private school teachers can knock the doors of honorable high court for their rights and co-authenticity for their review certainly it is a it is a writ which is maintainable if you look at and in that trust case you will be able to if you read that you will know that you can do so I think there was a judgment of justice where in it was held that when the government had come out with that act that during the COVID you will have to pay the full salary then at that point of time it was said that the state the government should work upon probably that judgment was by a Ludhiana machine tools okay where it said that the state the private organization should prefer not to in the respect what is that 3 trust case they didn't accept it you should try to work upon because the employers have gone that they don't have the ability to pay yeah so thank you Mr. it was though we tried a lot to connect with you and ultimately we have been able to get the insights from you just one question I have to the participants can some of the participants tell me at least one new learning you learned today either you can tell me or you can put in your chat box just one important learning something that was totally new to you in this highlights and feedback we have allowed everyone to unmute anybody who wants to share the this thing they can share according to me you have shared the wide spectrum of knowledge everybody would have gained something because they say if you hear a lot of things gradually you see a lot of energy as well as a knowledge because normally we don't somebody saying feedback link we don't get the feedback we believe that some people used to initially ask why don't you issue us the participation certificate we say that is pro bono and you should participate we are not here to issue certificates for that but I can vouch upon that everybody would have learned the product so thank you Mr. thank you your wide spectrum of knowledge gives us an impetus that we can keep on asking different issues Nethika says I have learned about the different articles and roles as per the different articles I want to say thank you so thank you Mr. thank you it's a pleasure talking to you thanks