Tag: Constitution

Advertisement for employment and the rigours of Articles 14 and 16

Parijat KaranLeave a comment

An advertisement issued by the respondent was completely silent on the aspect of total number of posts and the number of reserved quota and general quota posts.

Dealing extensively with essential ingredients of a valid advertisement, the Court observed:

Para 18 – ‘A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,18 discussed in detail the requirements of a valid advertisement and observed thus:-

“16. Another important requirement of public appointment is that of transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others.”(emphasis supplied). ‘

Dealing with the mandate of Article 16 in relation to advertisement, it was observed:

Para 22 – ‘it is imperative that the State must specifically mention in the advertisement the total number of reserved and unreserved seats. However, if the State does not intend to provide reservation, in view of the quantifiable data indicating adequacy of representation, this aspect must also be specifically mentioned in the advertisement.’

On the exceptions to the principle of natural justice, a case was cited by the Court which dealt sufficiently with the topic:

Para 29 – Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, 22 wherein it was held thus: – “38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on.…

40. In this behalf, we need to notice one other exception which has been carved out to the aforesaid principle by the courts. Even if it is found by the court that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the courts have held that it may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that the order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of “prejudice”. The ultimate test is always the same viz. the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing.”

Para 31 – “when the appointment of the candidates is a nullity in law making them disentitled to hold the posts, the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when the same would be nothing short of an exercise in futility.“


In para 35, the Court held – “Thus, it is clear that once the appointment process is declared to be a nullity in law, every action taken in furtherance of such appointment process is also illegal, and, therefore, the constitutional courts have jurisdiction to set aside such appointments wholly and ab-initio. This power of the Court is not curtailed even in a situation where a third-party right has been created in those who have been offered appointment or have even joined the service.“

Case name – Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. [2025] 3 S.C.R

The Judiciary as Sentinel : Israeli Supreme Court’s judgment in Quintinsky v. Knesset

Parijat KaranLeave a comment

The petitions filed by concerned citizens and advocacy groups challenged the Multiple Apartments Tax Arrangement (MATA) and its legislative procedures, arguing that they were not conducted in a transparent and fair manner. The MATA, with its provisions aimed at taxing multiple apartment owners, had significant economic and legal implications for property owners and the real estate market as a whole. Therefore, it warranted thoughtful and thorough debate to fully understand its potential ramifications. However, to the surprise and dismay of many, the Finance Committee’s debate on the MATA was scheduled to take place in the late hours of the night, a time when most Knesset members were unlikely to be fully alert and engaged. This scheduling decision raised concerns that the debate was being rushed, depriving the legislators of the necessary time to carefully review and consider such a serious bill. As a result, many felt that the democratic process was not being upheld, and that proper scrutiny and discussion of the MATA were being compromised.

Justice Sohlberg took note of it and held that the lack of opportunity to conduct a proper debate which violated the principle of participation and the circumstances surrounding the legislative proceedings of the Tax Arrangement in the course of the preparation of the bill by the Finance Committee for a second and third reading leads to the conclusion that there was a defect that went to the heart of the legislative process“.

It was proposed by the Respondents that a ‘warning of voidness’ would suffice but Sohlberg J. opined that a mere warning would be inadequate given the seriousness of the defect in the legislative process.

Ultimately, it was concluded that while the defect in the legislative procedure was substantial, its impact was limited to the Committee’s preparatory debates for the subsequent readings. Consequently, the corrective action should be targeted at rectifying these particular shortcomings, rather than discarding the entire legislative endeavor and beginning anew, which would result in more detriment than advantage.

Justice Sohlberg proposed that the Multiple Apartments Tax Arrangement be deemed relatively void, that is, the legislature could “return” to the legislative process from the stage of deliberation in the Finance Committee – the stage at which the defect occurred – and continue as required.

The majority of the judges concurred with Justice Sohlberg’s judgment. This significant judicial decision shed light on the inherent problems associated with accelerated legislative proceedings, bringing attention to the potential risks and implications of such processes. The Supreme Court applied transformative constitutionalism, by not adopting a narrower jurisprudence and acting as a guardian of the Knesset, in order to promote Israeli democracy.

In addition, it underscored the importance of allowing the opposition to play an active and substantive role in parliamentary proceedings, rather than being marginalized or reduced to a mere rubber stamp. Furthermore, the case served as a powerful reminder of the vital role of the Courts in safeguarding and upholding the democratic process, particularly in relation to the other branches of the government, ensuring the preservation of fundamental democratic principles and values.