Tag: Article 19(1)(g)

Understanding the Supreme Court’s Verdict on Interstate Bus Permits and State Schemes
19Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Understanding the Supreme Court’s Verdict on Interstate Bus Permits and State Schemes

The Supreme Court ruled that an inter-state reciprocal transport agreement under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not override an approved nationalization scheme under Chapter VI. A notified route for a State Transport Undertaking prevails, prohibiting private operators from plying on any overlapping portion, even if part of an inter-state route. Facts Of The Case: The case centered on disputes arising from an Inter-State Reciprocal Transport (IS-RT) Agreement of 2006 between Madhya Pradesh (MP) and Uttar Pradesh (UP). The agreement reserved certain inter-state routes for the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC). After MPSRTC reportedly stopped operations, private operators obtained temporary permits from MP's transport authority to p...
Read More
Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness
17Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness

The Supreme Court ruled that investigating agencies cannot directly summon an Advocate to disclose privileged communications with a client under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. Such a summons violates the attorney-client privilege and the accused's fundamental rights. Any exception must be explicitly justified, approved by a senior officer, and is subject to judicial review under Section 528 of the BNSS. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered at the Odhav Police Station in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and other statutes concerning a loan agreement dispute. Following the arrest of an accused, an Advocate filed a successful bail application before the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the Assistant C...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses
29Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Chhattisgarh’s Tender Rule, Upholds “Level Playing Field” for Businesses

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to various other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to Sta...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Level Playing Field, Strikes Down Arbitrary Tender Clause
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Level Playing Field, Strikes Down Arbitrary Tender Clause

The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender's object. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to several other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to state gov...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers
14Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers

This judgment primarily interprets Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding deemed closure. The Court examined if an application for closure was complete and if the State's communication constituted a valid refusal within the statutory 60-day period for deemed permission. It also considered the "appropriate Government's" role and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade) implications. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an application by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) seeking permission to close its undertaking, as required under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The company sought closure due to various reasons, including financial viability issues. The central dispute revolved around whether the State of Maharashtra, as the appropri...
Read More
Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students

The Supreme Court held that the Kerala government's directive to create a corpus fund from NRI student fees lacked legislative backing, violating the principle that fees cannot be levied without statutory authority. It ruled that unaided institutions retain autonomy over fee structures, subject only to anti-profiteering regulations, and emphasized that welfare measures must be enacted through proper legislation. The Court allowed colleges to retain collected funds but mandated their use for subsidizing economically weaker students. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the Kerala government's directive requiring self-financing medical colleges to contribute a portion of fees collected from Non-Resident Indian (NRI) students towards a corpus fund. This fund aimed to subs...
Read More
“Can Employers Enforce a Minimum Service Period” Supreme Court Upholds Employees Must Pay for Premature Resignation
20May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Can Employers Enforce a Minimum Service Period” Supreme Court Upholds Employees Must Pay for Premature Resignation

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Vijaya Bank's employment bond clause requiring a minimum 3-year service period or payment of Rs. 2 lakhs for premature resignation. The Court ruled this condition does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act (restraint of trade) as it applies during employment, nor is it opposed to public policy under Section 23. The judgment clarified that while standard form contracts reflect unequal bargaining power, such terms remain enforceable unless proven unconscionable or unreasonable. The Court recognized the bank's legitimate interest in maintaining workforce stability through such reasonable restrictions. This decision reinforces the distinction between restraints during employment versus post-employment and sets parameters for evaluating liqui...
Read More