Article 226 - The Legal Chamber

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the "Ungaludan Stalin" (Your's Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme's name and ass...

Supreme Court Split Verdict: When Can Schools Be Held Accountable Under Article 226?

The Supreme Court examined whether Air Force Schools qualify as a "State" under Article 12 or an "authority" amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The majority held that despite partial government control and funding, the schools lacked pervasive state dominance, relegating disputes to private contract law. However, the dissenting opinion emphasized their public function, deep administrative control by the Indian Air Force, and indirect public funding, making them subject to writ jurisdiction. The split verdict clarifies the distinction between regulatory control and pervasive state authority in educational institutions Facts Of The Case: The case involved two civil appeals before the Supreme Court concerning the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad. In Ci...

Ex-MLA’s Plea Rejected: Supreme Court Rules Against Fraud Claims in Rs. 2426 Crore Irrigation Scheme

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's rejection of a PIL alleging fraudulent revision of costs in the Palamuru-Ranga Reddy Lift Irrigation Scheme. The Court held that factual adjudication cannot be pursued under Article 226 and upheld the High Court's discretion in refusing a CBI probe, citing prior findings by the Central Vigilance Commission and constructive res judicata. The ruling reaffirmed judicial restraint in interfering with discretionary orders absent jurisdictional errors. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Nagam Janardhan Reddy, a former MLA and Minister in Andhra Pradesh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, alleging fraudulent revision of cost estimates for the Palamuru-...