The Supreme Court of India has ruled that writ courts have the authority to exercise suo motu powers to invalidate subordinate legislation when it violates fundamental rights. This significant decision reiterates that such laws, even if not directly challenged, can be declared unconstitutional if they conflict with binding precedents and the constitutional framework.

“It is not only the duty of the writ courts in the country to enforce Fundamental Rights of individuals, who approach them, but it is equally the duty of the writ courts to guard against breach of Fundamental Rights of others by the three organs of the State,” the Court observed.

The judgment emphasizes that constitutional courts have broad powers, including the power to strike down a subordinate legislation on their own, provided the law is clearly against a fundamental right.

“Should, in a given case, it be found that there has been an egregious violation of a Fundamental Right as a result of operation of a subordinate legislation and the issue is concluded by a binding decision of this Court, we consider it the duty of the writ courts to deliver justice by declaring the subordinate legislation void to safeguard rights of others who might not still have been affected thereby.”

At the same time, the Court added a note of caution. It held that this power must be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Bars Equitable Relief for Illegally Appointed Candidates

Background of the Case

The case arose when the Patna High Court, while exercising its suo motu jurisdiction, struck down the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014. These rules allowed a retiring chowkidar to nominate a dependent family member for appointment in his place. The High Court ruled this provision violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Indian Constitution.

The decision came even though there was no formal challenge against the rule. The petitioner in the Supreme Court, the Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division), was not originally a party in the case. They challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction to invalidate the law without any formal petition questioning its validity.

The primary legal issue was whether the High Court was justified in declaring the provision unconstitutional on its own initiative, despite no one having formally challenged it.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, upheld the High Court’s action. Writing the judgment, Justice Datta stated that the power to suo motu declare a subordinate legislation void is indeed within the jurisdiction of writ courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“We see no reason as to why the power to suo motu declare a subordinate legislation invalid, on the ground of its being manifestly contrary to a Fundamental Right read with binding precedents in terms of Article 141, should not be conceded to be within the vast reserve of powers of the Constitutional Courts.”

Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Expression: Police Must Protect Constitutional Rights

The Court further rejected the argument that the High Court acted beyond its authority. It found no illegality in the High Court striking down the rule, especially when the rule allowed hereditary appointment, which goes against the principle of equal opportunity in public employment.

“The High Court’s decision cannot be said to be illegal merely because there was no formal challenge. The assumption is that the High Court was aware that public posts cannot be claimed on the basis of heredity.”

The Supreme Court clarified that while subordinate legislation enjoys a presumption of constitutionality like primary laws, this does not prevent writ courts from applying judicial scrutiny.

“After all, a subordinate legislation is seen as removed from the democratic process that is closely knit with primary legislation and hence, a more rigorous scrutiny in appropriate cases may not be inapt.”

Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules: Charge-Sheet Approval Not Mandatory by Appointing Authority Under Article 311

The Court added that the intensity of this scrutiny may differ depending on several factors, such as:

• The nature of the subordinate legislation,
• Its consistency with the Constitution or parent law,
• The context and method of its enforcement,
• And its impact on individual rights and public interest.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:

“This power (suo motu) is a plenary power resident in all the Constitutional Courts... We reiterate, it can only be done rarely and in cases which stand out from the ordinary.”

As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat and confirmed the Patna High Court’s judgment striking down the offending rule as unconstitutional.

Also From the Judgment: Supreme Court: Lack of Public Jobs Still a Major Issue Even After 75+ Years of Independence

Case Title: BIHAR RAJYA DAFADAR CHAUKIDAR PANCHAYAT (MAGADH DIVISION) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS