Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Notification issued by the State of U.P. declaring that the appellant ceased to hold the office as a Member of the U.P. State Human Rights Commission. The appellant, who had been appointed for a five-year term starting from 1.7.2006, challenged this Notification in a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the Amendment Act 2006 could not be applied retrospectively to curtail his tenure, and he fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the amended provisions. The respondents contended that the High Court could not grant relief due to the non-joinder of necessary parties, as new appointments had been made during the pendency of the writ petition. The Supreme Court analyzed the statutory provisions of the Act 1993 and the Amendment Act 2006, concluding that the Notification was illegal as it violated the appellant's vested rights. The court emphasized that the amendment did not expressly provide for retrospective application and that the appellant's tenure was protected under the original provisions. The appeal was allowed, and the court awarded costs to the appellant.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Retrospective Application of Amendments - Amendment Act 2006 - The amendment to the Act 1993 does not apply retrospectively to the appellant's tenure, which was protected under the original provisions. The court held that the Notification declaring cessation of membership was illegal as it violated the appellant's accrued rights under Section 26 of the Act 1993 (Paras 31-32).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Notification declaring the appellant ceased to hold the office as a Member of the U.P. State Human Rights Commission was valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring the Notification dated 28.5.2008 illegal and awarding costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant.
Law Points
- tenure of service
- retrospective application of amendments
- vested rights
- necessary parties
- principles of natural justice
Case Details
2011 LawText (SC) (04) 129
Civil Appeal No. 3299 of 2011
Dr. B. S. Chauhan, P. Sathasivam
Shri V. Shekhar, Ms. Shilpa Singh, Shri Pramod Swarup
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to a Notification declaring cessation of membership in the U.P. State Human Rights Commission.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to challenge the Notification and restore his membership.
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that his tenure could not be curtailed by the Amendment Act 2006.
Previous Decisions
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Notification.
Issues
Validity of the Notification declaring cessation of membership
Application of the Amendment Act 2006 to the appellant's tenure
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the Notification was illegal as it violated his accrued rights.
The respondents contended that the High Court could not grant relief due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The Notification declaring cessation of membership was found to be illegal as it violated the appellant's vested rights under Section 26 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the Amendment Act 2006 did not apply retrospectively.
Judgment Excerpts
The amendment would apply prospectively, particularly in view of the fact that the Amendment Act 2006 does not expressly or by necessary implication suggest that such a drastic step is permissible giving retrospective effect to the Amendment Act 2006.
The Notification dated 28.5.2008 is patently illegal.
No order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him.
Procedural History
The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 27315 of 2008 challenging the Notification dated 28.5.2008, which was dismissed by the High Court on 21.4.2009, leading to the present appeal.
Acts & Sections
- The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: 21, 23, 26
- The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006:
- The General Clauses Act, 1897: 3(17), 6
- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 9
