Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR)

The Supreme Court held that strict compliance with publication requirements is an indispensable condition precedent for the enforceability of delegated legislation. It emphasised that publication in the Official Gazette is not an empty formality but rather an act by which executive decisions are transformed into law.

In 2018, the Delhi High Court had dismissed writ petitions challenging a Union notification which introduced Minimum Import Price (MIP) for specific steel products. The central issue pertained to when the notification would take effect. The appellants contended that it was 11 February 2016, the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. The Union argued that it was 5 February, the date on which it was uploaded on the ministry website.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were exempt from the MIP for transactions that took place before 11 February. The Court held that for a law to be binding, it must first be known to the public in a manner specified by the legislature. On a plain reading of the parent statute, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, it found that the mode of publication was not left to executive discretion.

The Supreme Court held that compensatory allowances fall within the definition of “ordinary rate of wages” and must be included in calculation of overtime wage under Section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948. It clarified that government ministries have no power to read exclusions into the statutory provision and upheld a liberal interpretation of the beneficial legislation.

Through multiple letters and Office Memorandums, different government ministries had asserted that Section 59(2) should exclude compensatory allowance from the calculation of overtime wage. In 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed applications that challenged this interpretation. In 2011, the Madras High Court ruled in favour of the petitioners with a plain and simple reading of the statute. The Union appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that calculations based on differing allowances would lead to disparity between employees. The petitioners argued that exclusion of allowances by some ministries is not permissible as it will lead to disparity of application of law in different establishments.

The Supreme Court held that government ministries had no power to issue clarifications on provisions. Further, an interpretation curtailing benefits to workers must be avoided. It upheld the High Court decision and dismissed the appeals.

The Supreme Court held that a marriage can be dissolved under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even without mutual consent to prevent prolonged and abusive matrimonial litigation from clogging the judicial system.

Parties to the proceeding were a married couple who shared residence for only 65 days after which they lived separately for over a decade. They filed more than 40 cases against each other in various courts, including maintenance applications, domestic violence charges, criminal complaints, execution petitions and perjury applications. The trial courts had disposed of several proceedings while many remained pending. A transfer petition before the Supreme Court triggered an application by the wife under Article 142 seeking dissolution of marriage. Mediation attempts failed and the husband opposed divorce, alleging harassment and perjury.

The Court dissolved the marriage despite lack of mutual consent. It terminated all pending matrimonial proceedings except perjury-related cases, and imposed ₹10000 as costs on each of the parties payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.

The Supreme Court held that a candidate having participated in the process of selection, without protest, cannot challenge the Rules after being declared unsuccessful.

A candidate had failed to meet the cut off criteria for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineer). She challenged the appointment process conducted under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 arguing that it was contrary to the All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 (AICTE Regulations). A Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition stating that the candidate had participated in the process without any protest. A Division Bench set aside the Order stating that the AICTE regulations govern direct recruitment and directed a fresh round for the candidate.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgement. It held that the AICTE regulations are applicable for the advancement of incumbent teachers who are already embedded within the academic system. The Court held that AICTE Regulations and State Rules operate in a different field. AICTE Regulations do not apply to the process of direct recruitment under the State Rules. Therefore, the question of one superseding the other does not arise. The Court upheld the recruitment process.