This article is written by Meenakshi Kalra. It discusses the constitutional validity of Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 which was challenged in the case of Ram Dial vs. State of Punjab (1965). Under this Section, the State Government could ask any elected municipal committee member to vacate a seat for what it deemed to be in the public interest. Further, the analysis of this case has placed emphasis on the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and the need to tackle the arbitrary power of the state.

Introduction 

As the world’s largest democracy, India has deeply rooted values of justice, liberty, and equality. After gaining independence from colonial rule, India became a democratic nation in 1947, and it derived its democracy from the Indian Constitution. 

The democracy in India emphasises the principle of political equality, which means that it promotes equal political rights for all citizens along with equality before the law. So the case of Ram Dial and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1965) highlights the need for a deeper consideration of the nature of power and its limitations within a democracy. 

The case at hand is an important decision given by the Supreme Court of India that focuses on the constitutional validity of Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. This case emphasises the role of the judiciary in striking a balance between the authority and power of the state and the rights of individuals that are guaranteed to them under the Constitution.

This case also sheds light on the relationship between the state and its citizens. It emphasises the importance for laws to be not only just in their intent but also in their application. For this reason, it can be said that judicial oversight is important in maintaining the integrity of democratic institutions. This case also underscores the importance of judicial intervention in protecting civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Details of the case

Appellant

Ram Dial

Respondent

State of Punjab

Case type

Civil Appeals Nos. 300-302 of 1964

Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Bench

Justice J.C. Shah, Justice J.R. Mudholkar, Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice M. Hidayatullah, Justice S.M. Sikri

Judgement Date

3rd February, 1965

Equivalent citations 

AIR 1965 SC 1518, (1965) 67 PLR 835, [1965] 2 SCR 858, AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 1518

Legal provisions involved

1. Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
2. Section 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
3. Section 24 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
4. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Author’s Note: This article references the provisions laid down in Section 14(e) and Section 24 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, as they existed prior to substitution made by Punjab Municipal Act of 1994. Additionally, the proviso of Section 16(1) was substituted by Act 3 of 1933, but the opportunity of being heard remains a relevant aspect. While the links provided direct to the current version of the Act, the readers are advised to consult the specific version of the Act relevant to the time frame discussed. Since the older version of the Act is not readily accessible online an explanation of the provisions as they were prior to the amendments has also been provided below.

Background of Ram Dial and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1965)

Before independence, the laws in India were influenced by a blend of English common law and existing native laws. During the colonial era, the legal system in India was governed by various acts which were enacted only in specific regions and there was a lack of a unified legal system in the country.

The need was felt to establish an effective and accountable municipal administration and local self-governance for the better functioning of the country. The Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was introduced in Punjab after receiving the assent of the Lieutenant  Governor of the Punjab, James McCrone Douie on the 3rd May, 1911. Further,  the Governor General, Charles Hardinge on the 7th July, 1911 gave his assent for better administration of the municipalities that existed in the state at that time.

The Act of 1911 laid down provisions for the establishment, composition, and functioning of municipal committees in Punjab along with provisions for the election and appointment of members of the municipal committee. 

It also aimed at improving accountability and transparency in municipalities and their operations, along with promoting public participation in local governance. This Act also laid down the foundation for the development of urban infrastructure and services in the state of Punjab.

In the 1960s, India was dealing with the challenges presented by the post-independence governance infrastructure that existed in the country. The political landscape at that time was full of political parties trying to gain influence at local levels, which led to increasing tension between the different political groups. Recognising the need for more efficient governance systems to manage these challenges, the Punjab Municipal Act has been amended several times to deal with the present day issues and to enhance the efficiency of municipal governance, improve public services and promote local self-government.

Facts of the case 

1. The three appellants in the present case won the elections conducted in Batala for the Municipal Committee on 22nd January, 1961 and the result for the same was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 27th February, 1961. They assumed their role on 16th March, 1961 after taking oath.
2. The Governor of Punjab issued notifications dated July 26, 1961, wherein it was stated that the seats held by the appellants were to be vacated from the date of the publication of the notifications in the State Gazette for reasons relating to public interest.
3. The notifications also stated that the appellants would be barred from contesting in elections for 5 years from the date of publishing of the notifications under Section 16(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. (The words “or whose seat has been vacated under the provisions of Section 14(e)” were omitted by Punjab Municipal Act of 1935. This makes the scope of the amended Section alot narrower as the 5 year disqualification would no longer apply to the persons vacating their seats under this Section automatically.)
4. The appellants got to know that the notifications were issued due to the decision taken by the outgoing municipal committee to disqualify and remove them from their elected seats on 13th March, 1961. This was done because the appellants had engaged in a demonstration on 10th March, 1961 where they had broken some glass panes of the municipal building.
5. Aggrieved by the notification, three appeals were filed by the appellants against the judgement of the Punjab High Court, which was awarded in favour of the respondents. According to the High Court, the order given by the state to vacate the seats was in accordance with the power given to the state to carry out administrative functions. The High Court stated that the issue presented before it was not something that could be judged by the court, and as a result the petitions were dismissed.
6. Moreover, a writ petition had also been filed by Uma Shankar (appellant) which highlighted the same issue as the one stated in the appeals i.e. whether Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition and the three appeals were dealt with together by the Supreme Court in this case since they shared the same issues and subject matter revolving around the constitutional validity of Section 14(e) of the Act.

Issues raised 

1. Whether Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 is constitutionally valid?
2. Whether 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 is in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950?

Arguments of the parties

Appellants

The appellants contended that they did not receive any notice for putting forward their arguments as to why their seats should not be vacated. They were not given a chance to be heard before disqualifying them. Further, they did not get the opportunity to put their points in front of the Governor of Punjab as to why they should be allowed to retain their seats, which disrupted their right to be heard. 

According to the language used in the judgement of the Punjab High Court, it can also be inferred that they were disqualified because the municipal committee’s decision was based on the outgoing member committee and these members belonged to the Congress Party. The resolution which disqualified the appellants was advanced to cause hurt to them. Thus, the resolution was passed in bad faith and with an unjust intention. It indicates that the appellants might have felt the disqualification was a result of the committee’s bias against them. 

Further, the appellants were of the view that Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was discriminatory and was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which assures the right to equality. They argued that the proviso of Section 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 states that the state government shall provide reasons for the removal of an elected member and also give an opportunity to state their defence in writing before such removal takes place. However, it should be noted that under Section 14(e), if a member is removed by the state government on account of securing public interest then it is not required to provide an explanation or a hearing.

According to the appellants, both Section 16 and Section 14(e) talk about the removal of an elected member in the public interest. The difference between the two is that under the proviso of Section 16(1) the member has the right to a hearing before such removal takes place, but where no such right is given under Section 14(e). Thus, it can be said that the State Government has been given arbitrary power under Section 14(e). This makes it discriminatory in nature, as it does not give the members a chance to defend themselves when they are asked to vacate their seats. This is in clear violation of the principle of natural justice, as the appellants were not given an opportunity to be heard. 

Respondent  

The respondents contended that under the proviso of Section 24(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 the State Government can refuse to notify the election of any municipal committee member under the provisions laid down in Section 16. 

Further, if the state government feels that a member has engaged in any act that affects the public interest negatively and is unfit to serve in the committee because of his actions then if the State refuses to recognize the election then that election shall become void.

Thus, it can be said that the state is empowered to remove any elected member under Sections 14(e) and 16(1) if the actions of such a member are against the public interest.

Law discussed in Ram Dial and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1965)

Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911

Section 14 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 allowed the state government to take certain actions for public interest or at the appeal of the majority of the voters. Under this Section, the State Government could:

• Increase or decrease the number of seats in any committee, 
• Appoint members on its own if members elected were less than the required number, or
• Vacate the seats of both elected and appointed members, notwithstanding any other rules or provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

Clauses (c) and (d) were omitted by the Punjab Municipal Act of 1951.

Section 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911

Section 16(1) talks about the powers given to the state government to remove the members of the committee through the notification if the reason for such removal falls under the seven reasons listed in this Section.

1. If the member suffers from the inability to act owing to his incapacity, bankruptcy, conviction of an offence or a court order.
2. If the member has been disqualified from serving the public due to unfit character.
3. If the member has missed three consecutive months of meetings without a proper and sufficient reason.
4. If the member is a threat to public peace and security.
5. If the member has misused his position and power or misappropriated committee funds or property.
6. If the member has been disqualified after the election under any rule.
7. If the member has appeared in a legal proceeding against the committee as a legal practitioner and acted in a way that harms the interests of the committee.

Under this Section’s proviso the state government is obligated to inform the member being removed along with the reasons for such removal. This Section also provides them with an opportunity to explain themselves and their actions in writing.

Under Section 16(2) of the Act states that a person shall not be allowed to contest in the elections for a period of 5 years if- 

• the person is removed from their seat; or
• Whose election is invalidated under Section 24(2); or 
• if the election has been declared void on the grounds of engaging in corruption or intimidation under Section 225; or 
• if the state government refuses to notify the election under Section 24.

Section 24 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911

Section 24 states the procedure laid down for taking oath by the elected members of the municipal committee. Under this Section, an oath must be taken by the elected member before starting their duties in the municipal committee as a municipal member.

The state government is required to notify the election of a Municipality President in the Official Gazette. The President is not allowed to begin his/her duties before such notification is made. However, the state government is not required to notify the election of the President if he/she has become disqualified under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act or any other law after the election. Further, the government is required to give the disqualified person a chance to be heard before refusing the notification.

In the present case, a reference was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to Section 24. Section 24 before the amendment in 1994 stated that the elected members must take their oath within 3 months of their election notification, otherwise the election would be declared invalid. If a member failed to do so then a fresh election was to be held to fill the vacant seat. 

The proviso of the unamended Section also stated that the elected member could be removed from the seat under Section 16 of the Act or if the State Government felt that the elected member was unfit to be a member and it affected the public interest.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Article 14 is given under Part III of the Constitution of India, and it is regarded as one of the most important fundamental rights that are enshrined under the Constitution. Article 14 talks about equality before the law. Under this Article, the State cannot deny any person their right to equality before the law or equal protection of laws. This means that all persons are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and that the protection granted by the law shall apply to all in the same manner without any discrimination on any basis. 

The aim of Article 14 is to achieve equality, as has also been stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. Thus, not only does this Article make it obligatory for the state to practise non-discrimination, but it also makes sure that any existing inequalities in the society are also dealt with in an appropriate manner. It mandates that no special privilege is to be given to any individual or group under any provision of law, though there are some exceptions to the right to equality, such as:

1. The rights of public individuals are different from the rights of private individuals, i.e. the powers given to the public individuals can only be used by them and not by private individuals. For example, a private individual cannot arrest a person, the power to arrest can be exercised by a police officer only unless specified in any other law which is in force at the time. 
2. The state is empowered to make special laws for people belonging to a particular section of the society for their upliftment. These laws can be for the people belonging to any specific caste, class or sex of the people living in India. For example, reservation which falls under the rule of reasonable classification and cannot be held to be in contravention of Article 14. Reasonable classification is when a certain group of people belonging to the weaker sections of the society are grouped together to provide them with certain privileges to aid in their upliftment.
3. Ministers and executive bodies may use the discretionary powers given to them as long as such exercise of power is reasonable and not arbitrary. 

Under Article 361, the President and Governors are not answerable to any court for the actions undertaken by them while they were performing their duties. Further, they have immunity from all criminal proceedings during their tenure and no court can issue an arrest warrant for the same. In case of a civil proceeding, they have to be given a two-month notice before initiating such proceedings.

As per Articles 105 and 194, they cannot be held liable for any remark made by them in the Parliament or State Legislature during their speech. Further, immunity is also given to foreign sovereigns, diplomats, and ambassadors from all civil and criminal proceedings.

4. Different laws apply to different people according to their professions. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, police officers and the military are all governed by special laws as per their professions.
5. Under Section 135A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the members of legislative bodies cannot be arrested or detained in civil cases. 

• This applies to Members of Parliament (MPs of either of the houses), Member of legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State or a Legislative Assembly of a Union territory, during the continuance of any meeting of such House of Parliament or, as the case may be, of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. 
• This also includes member of committee of Parliament (either of the houses), member of committee of the Legislative Assembly of a State or member of committee of the Union territory or the Legislative council of a State, during the continuance of any meeting of such committee. 
• Further if a person is a member of Parliament (either of the houses) or a Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State having both such Houses then they shall be given protection against arrest and detention while attending a joint session, meeting, conference, or joint committee involving both Houses of Parliament or both Houses of the State Legislature and also for 40 days before and 40 days after these sessions, meetings, or conferences.

Judgement in Ram Dial and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1965)

The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dial vs. State of Punjab (1965) gave the judgement in favour of the appellants. The court stated that the proviso of Section 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 provides for the removal of a member for reasons stated under clauses (a) to (g) which are all in the public interest. Such removal shall be done after the member is given a chance to explain as to why they should not be removed. Section 14 on the other hand, which also talks about the removal of a member in the public interest, does not make any provision to give the member an opportunity to be heard. 

Section 14 had a wider ambit when compared to Section 16(1) but it did not provide the member asked to vacate the seat a chance to state their arguments. This meant that the state government could use this Section to remove a member for the reasons given in Section 16(1) without being required to provide a hearing. Due to this, Section 14(e) was stricter than Section 16(1) as decisions can be made without any hearing. This makes Section 14(e) discriminatory and unjust, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which gives the right to equality before the law.

As a result, the court held that the part of Section 14(e) which gave the state the power to remove members without a hearing shall be struck down as unconstitutional. The notifications for the disqualification of the appellants also failed.

Rationale behind this judgement

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that Section 14(e) is discriminatory in nature as it did not contain any procedural safeguards, and it allowed removal of members without an opportunity to be heard. Further, under the proviso of Section 16(1) the members being removed must be notified of the same and be given an explanation for such a decision and a chance to be heard. In Section 16(3) it is stated that the member being removed will not be allowed to contest in elections for a period not more than 5 years, but no such provision has been made under Section 14(e). This makes the power given to the state under Section 14(e) dictatorial and absolute. 

The court was of the opinion that there was a significant overlap in the two Sections and the powers given under them, with the only difference was of the right to be heard. The state government might use Section 14(e) to avoid the hearing procedure, which would result in unequal treatment and biases, thus violating Article 14.

The court also stated that the requirements under the proviso of Section 24(3) and Section 14(e) are separate and are not to be treated in the same manner. Section 24(3) talks about the refusal of election notifications in case an elected member does not take an oath within a specified period. Whereas, Section 14(e) talks about removal of the members after they have been elected and taken office. 

Thus, even though Section 24(3) lets the state government reject the election of someone for public interest reasons without providing notice or a hearing, it does not mean that the same can be applied in the case of Section 14(e). Therefore, it was held by the court that Section 14(e) is seen as discriminatory and in contravention of Article 14 because it does not provide the opportunity for a member to be heard.

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Shri Radeshyam Khare vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1958)

In the case of Shri Radeshyam Khare vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1958), the main point of contention was whether the executive officer appointed by the state government under the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 was done in a judicial or administrative capacity under Section 53A of the said Act. The appellants argued that the notification furnished to them for the enquiry should have been presented to them under Section 57 instead, as it would give them a chance to be heard and explain themselves. The Supreme Court held that Sections 53A and 57 differed in their scope and application and hence, it is upon the government to choose which Section they want to apply, if at all, they want to apply one. Thus, the court stated that the state government acted in an administrative capacity while appointing the executive officer as the purpose of appointing the executive officer under Section 53A was to ensure the proper and efficient administration of the municipality and not to penalise anyone or adjudicate on any matter. The focus of the State Government was to achieve efficiency in operations of the committee and not adjudication.

Harnam Singh Modi vs. The State (1958)

In the case of Harnam Singh Modi vs. The State of Punjab (1958), the Punjab and Haryana High Court analysed the scope of Sections 14 and 15 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. (Note: Section 15 of 1911 Act was substituted by Section 6 of Punjab Municipal Act of 1933.)

It was stated by Chief Justice Bhandari after exploring various American and English cases that if a statute lays down the procedure for removing a member of the corporation, then it must be followed. If the law contained in the statute states that the removal must be done without giving notice or without a hearing, then it must be done in that way. If the law makes provisions for conducting a hearing or giving a notice before removal, then that process must be followed as well.

In the present case of Ram Dial vs. State of Punjab since Section 14(e) has no such requirement for conducting a hearing or giving a notice, it was not obligatory for the appropriate authority to make provisions for providing additional steps like giving notice or conducting a hearing before removing a member of the corporation. This was because Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 did not explicitly mandate such procedures. If it was written under the procedure for removal in Section 14(e) only then the need would arise to give notice as when a law specifies the procedure for removal it should be followed as written. 

Cooper vs. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863)

The case of Cooper vs. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) is one of the earliest cases dealing with the principle of natural justice, the right to be heard and rule against bias.

In this case, the plaintiff who was a builder was employed and was given the task of building a house in the district of Wandsworth. The defendants without giving him any prior notice sent a surveyor to the building site and demolished the building. The plaintiff argued that he was not given a chance to defend himself or to state his arguments. The Court  of Common Pleas was of the opinion that the defendants were not allowed to demolish the building without giving the plaintiff a chance to be heard and thus, they ruled in the favour of the plaintiff. The court highlighted the significance of the principle of natural justice and further stated that no one can be prevented from having their property by an administrative authority without being given an opportunity to be heard. 

Analysis of the case 

Positive features of the decision

Upholding the principle of natural justice

Article 14 of the Constitution is regarded as one of the most important fundamental rights given to the citizens of India, and it also forms a part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Articles 19 and 21.

The decision of the Supreme Court highlighted the ambiguities between Section 14(e) and Section 16(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 which led to making Section 14(e) discriminatory and arbitrary. The court through this judgement reaffirmed the principles of natural justice by emphasising the concept of opportunity to be heard. It can be said that this decision upholds the idea of procedural fairness, which is essential for democratic governance.

Limiting the arbitrary power of the State Government under Section 14

By addressing the unchecked power of the state government under Section 14(e), the court promoted accountability and transparency through its decision in this case and made sure that this power was not used to promote any political or personal biases.

Section 14 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 allows the state to remove the elected members for any reason which is in the public interest without giving them a chance to defend themselves. This gives the state government a broad and vague power with no explanation as to what can constitute to be in the public interest. It makes the unchecked power given to the state government dangerous, making the government unaccountable to the citizens of the nation, which can hamper democracy and fairness. 

Promoting equality under Article 14 of the Constitution

The court held that Section 14(e) violated Article 14 of the Constitution which ensures the right to equality before law. Under this Article all provisions and state actions must be just and free from any biases but Section 14(e) lacked the procedural safeguards which ensure this equality as any member could be removed without a hearing. This lack of safeguards led to unequal and discriminatory treatment of the members resulting in the encroachment of the rights of the elected members guaranteed under Article 14.

Strengthening democratic values

The decision of the court helped ensure that the representatives elected by the people of India are not removed from their positions without following the due process that has been laid down in the law. This ensured that there is increased accountability and transparency in the actions taken by the government. Moreover, this decision also promoted greater public participation by furthering the need for procedural fairness.

Promotion of judicial review

Judicial review is an important concept which secures the rights of individuals and makes sure that there is no curtailment of the same. The Constitution of India gives the Supreme Court and High Courts the power of judicial review wherein they can inspect, ascertain and overrule any law or action taken by the executive which is not in consonance with the provisions contained in the Constitution of India.

The judgement delivered by the court supported the power of judicial review by striking down Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 because it was contrary to principles stated in the Constitution. This decision prevents the abuse of power, protects the rights of individuals and makes sure that the principles stated in the Constitution are protected from arbitrary abuses by the government authorities.

Negative features of the decision

Curtailment of executive authority

The court, by stating that Section 14(e) was against the provisions of the Constitution, curtailed the powers given to the executive. This Section gave wide powers to the State Government to remove an official in case of certain situations that were against the interest of the public such as corruption, arbitrary use of power, maladministration etc.

The judgement might lead to a situation where the government is required to make a swift decision, but it might not be able to do so because its hands would be tied and it would be required to give the member of the municipal committee a chance to be heard. 

While the pros far outweigh the cons of the judgement, it still may lead to delays in addressing the situation at hand, which consequently might lead to harming the public interest rather than protecting it. It might also be argued that a legal vacuum was created after striking down the said Section as no other mechanism is present in the Act to remove elected members in case the public interest was being harmed and in case quick action was required to stop the same.

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ram Dial vs. State of Punjab (1965) strengthens the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and the fundamental rights contained in it. This decision is admirable when it comes to upholding the principles of natural justice. It also helps put checks on the state’s arbitrary power and reinforces democratic values which ensure equality before the law. 

This decision sets a precedent for safeguarding procedural fairness by striking down Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipal Act and upholds the rule of law. Consequently, it also encourages the legislature to make sure that the laws passed by it are properly analysed before they are enacted to make sure they are in consonance with the Constitution of India. 

Thus, this decision has a long-lasting impact on the understanding of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, along with the political landscape of the country that existed in the 1960’s. It further strengthened the idea of a just and equitable legal framework in the country as it reassured the people that their elected representatives could not be removed erratically and without reason.

The Supreme Court by concurring with the arguments made by the appellants highlighted that a provision cannot be enforced under the guise of public interest if the said provision is discriminatory and arbitrary. Thus, this decision protects the right to a fair hearing and enforces the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What are the principles of natural justice?

The phrase principles of natural justice originate from an expression in Roman Law ‘Jus Natural’. These principles form an important part of administrative law in a country as they ensure fairness, transparency and equality in all proceedings. These principles have not been derived from the Constitution or from any statutes; rather, they have developed over time with the evolution of mankind.

Natural Justice is made up of three principles:

1. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua

The literal meaning of ‘Nemo Judex In Causa Sua’ is that no one should be a judge in his own case. If one is allowed to judge their own case then this would lead to bias which would be unfair. It is of the utmost importance that a judge is neutral and impartial for justice to prevail. There are 6 types of bias that might arise – personal bias, pecuniary bias, subject matter bias, departmental bias, policy notion bias and bias on the account of obstinacy.

2. Audi Alteram Partem

The literal meaning of ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ translates to ‘hear the other side’. This means that no person can be held guilty without being given an opportunity to be heard first. Under this principle, both parties of the case shall be given a fair chance to present their case before reaching a decision based on the merits of the arguments presented by them. It also states that a person shall be given a notice stating the charges against him. This is also known as the rule of fair hearing. 

3. Reasoned decision

The concept of reasoned decision relies on the idea that for every decision made by the court, a reason must be provided. This is also known as the speaking order. Every reason provided must be clear and to the point to avoid arbitrariness and ambiguities. The court also must highlight the facts and on what basis it has given its decision, this guarantees that the parties have been given an opportunity to be heard during the proceedings. 

What is the concept of public interest, and how is it determined?

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, public interest can be defined as “something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” In simple terms, it means something which is done for the welfare of the general public at large.

According to this concept, everything that the government does should be aimed at promoting the common good of the citizens in order to fulfil their needs. For something to fall under the ambit of public interest, it needs to be made sure that it affects a major part of the society rather than just a private individual’s interests. 

To protect the public interest, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) may be filed in the court. A PIL can be filed for matters relating to road safety, pollution, construction hazards, terrorism, neglected children, atrocities on women, exploitation of casual workers, bonded labour, non-payment of minimum wages to workers, food adulteration, disturbance of ecological balance, maintenance of heritage and culture, etc. 

What is the golden triangle of the Constitution of India?

The golden triangle of the Constitution refers to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14,19 and 21. Article 14 talks about the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law irrespective of the religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth of a person. This ensures that there is no discrimination and that everyone is equally offered protection and treatment under the law.

Article 19 states that the citizens will be entitled to certain freedoms under the Constitution such as the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to assemble peacefully, the freedom to form associations or unions, the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India, and the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation. Article 21 states that every person shall have the right to life and personal liberty except when it has been warranted by the law.

These Articles together form the golden triangle and are regarded as the most important fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They are interdependent and interconnected which means they are not to be interpreted in isolation. Fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and thus, they cannot be amended by the Parliament. The rights guaranteed by these three Articles are essential in safeguarding the rule of law and the roots of democracy which run deep in India. 

What is judicial review and how is it different from an appeal?

The origin of the judicial review doctrine can be traced to the USA. In India, the power of judicial review has been given to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. It has been regarded as one of the basic features of the Constitution, which means that it cannot be amended and removed in any case. 

Judicial review refers to the power given to the judiciary to determine whether the laws made by the legislature and executive actions by the executive are in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution.

If the judiciary is of the opinion that the said laws and actions are against the provisions stated in the Constitution, then it shall be empowered to declare them as unconstitutional.

The doctrine of judicial review is vital when it comes to establishing the supremacy of the Constitution and the principles contained in it. It ensures that the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution are protected from arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the State and Central Government. Thus, it also helps in maintaining a check on the powers given to the State and Central Government.

Judicial review is different from an appeal on the basis that, in an appeal, the decision given by a lower court is reanalysed by a higher court on the basis of the facts of the case. Appeals are made when, according to the parties, an incorrect decision or an incorrect interpretation of a law is made. Appeals are of a statutory nature whereas judicial review is non-statutory in nature, i.e. provisions have been laid down for when a decision can be appealed and who it can be appealed to etc. Further, when it comes to judicial review, only public bodies can be brought under the scope of the same whereas, an appeal may be made against both private and public bodies.  

Judicial review is an important concept which not only protects the law of the land but also helps in the promotion of the rule of law and provides safeguards from any misuse of power.

References

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/natural-justice/ 
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/golden-triangle-indian-constitution/