Kerala HC: Ex-CISF Personnel can Buy Liquor from CAPF Canteens  ||  Kerala HC: Accused Can Respond Virtually or in Writing  ||  Kerala HC: No Caste or Lineage Required for Temple Priests  ||  Kerala HC Orders SIT Probe into Sabarimala Gold Loss  ||  Kerala HC Cancels Mohanlal’s Ivory Ownership Certificates  ||  Allahabad High Court : Deceased Farmer’s Odd Jobs Don’t Bar Family from Scheme Benefits  ||  Secured Creditors' Dues Take Priority Over Govt Claims: Allahabad HC on SARFAESI & RDB Acts  ||  Daughter Can’t Claim Mitakshara Father’s Property if He Died Pre-1956 & Son Survives: HC  ||  Gujarat High Court: Sessions Court Can’t Suspend Sentence Just to Allow Revision Filing  ||  Delhi High Court: Non-Combat Security Roles Crucial; Minor Lapse Risks National Safety    

Government of Meghalaya v. High Court of Meghalaya - (Supreme Court) (18 Mar 2016)

High Court cannot deliberate on constitutional validity of own accord

Human Rights

Meghalaya High Court’s suo moto cognizance on provisions in the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 pertaining to appointment of the Chairperson and Members to the Lokayukta was impermissible, the Supreme Court held. Terming the High Court’s approach “erroneous”, the Court opined a High Court could not deliberate over legislative provisions and pass judgment, unless a person with locus standi had challenged the same. The High Court had passed judgment after the State government’s failure to set up a State Human Rights Commission within a reasonable time. It consequently fixed a deadline by which the State would have to make the body functional and issued directions regarding its constituting members. The Supreme Court directed the government to make functional the Meghalaya Human Rights Commission by the end of June 2016.

Relevant : State of Haryana v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0524/2004 Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. MANU/SC/0058/2000

Tags : SUO MOTO   CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY   HUMAN RIGHTS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved