Supreme Court

Government of Meghalaya v. High Court of Meghalaya

18.03.2016

Human Rights

High Court cannot deliberate on constitutional validity of own accord

Meghalaya High Court’s suo moto cognizance on provisions in the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 pertaining to appointment of the Chairperson and Members to the Lokayukta was impermissible, the Supreme Court held. Terming the High Court’s approach “erroneous”, the Court opined a High Court could not deliberate over legislative provisions and pass judgment, unless a person with locus standi had challenged the same. The High Court had passed judgment after the State government’s failure to set up a State Human Rights Commission within a reasonable time. It consequently fixed a deadline by which the State would have to make the body functional and issued directions regarding its constituting members. The Supreme Court directed the government to make functional the Meghalaya Human Rights Commission by the end of June 2016.

Relevant

State of Haryana v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0524/2004
Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. MANU/SC/0058/2000

Tags : Suo moto constitutional validity human rights

Share :