9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit. 2. Validity of the Central Government's notification under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. 3. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Issue-Wise Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Suit: The State of Karnataka contended that the Central Government's notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry infringed its legal rights, thereby making the suit maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution. The Union of India argued that the notification was directed against individual ministers, not the State, and thus did not affect the State's legal rights. The Court held that the suit was maintainable under Article 131 because the dispute involved a question affecting the existence or extent of the State's legal rights. The Court emphasized that the State's legal interests were implicated, as the inquiry concerned the exercise of governmental powers by the State's Chief Minister and ministers. 2. Validity of the Central Government's Notification: The Central Government's notification was challenged on the grounds that it was ultra vires Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. The Court examined whether the notification violated the proviso to Section 3(1), which prevents the Central Government from appointing a Commission to inquire into a matter already covered by a State-appointed Commission unless the scope extends to two or more States. The Court found that the State Government's notification did not explicitly cover the specific allegations against the Chief Minister and other ministers, and the Central Government's notification excluded matters already covered by the State's notification. Thus, the Court concluded that the Central Government's notification did not violate the proviso to Section 3(1) and was valid. 3. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act: The State argued that if Section 3 authorized the Central Government to issue the impugned notification, the section itself was unconstitutional as it infringed upon the federal structure and the exclusive domain of the State's executive powers. The Court held that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, including Section 3, was within the legislative competence of the Parliament under Entry 94 of List I and Entry 45 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the Act did not confer any disciplinary or supervisory control over the State executive but merely provided a mechanism for fact-finding inquiries into matters of public importance. The Act was intended to enable the government to gather information and was not an exercise of executive control over the State. Conclusion: The suit was dismissed with costs. The Court upheld the validity of the Central Government's notification and the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the balance of powers between the Union and the States as outlined in the Constitution while recognizing the necessity of fact-finding inquiries into matters of public importance.
|
