NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved