Skip to main content

Natural justice principles can be waived in national security matters: SC

Strict implementation of principles of natural justice can be done away with in a case relating to national security, the Supreme Court on Friday said.

"In a situation of national security, a party cannot insist on the strict observance of the principles of natural justice. In such cases, it is the duty of the court to read into and provide for statutory exclusion, if not expressly provided in the rules governing the field," a bench of justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and Kurian Joseph said.



The bench said it is not for the court to decide what is in the interest of national security which should be left to the government.

"It is difficult to define in exact terms as to what is national security. However, the same would generally include socio-political stability, territorial integrity, economic solidarity and strength, ecological balance, cultural cohesiveness, external peace, etc.

"What is in the interest of national security is not a question of law. It is a matter of policy. It is not for the court to decide whether something is in the interest of state or not. It should be left to the executive," the bench said.

The bench, however, said it will be open to court to satisfy itself whether there were justifiable facts, and in that regard, the court is entitled to calling for the files and see whether it is a case where the interest of national security is involved.

The bench passed the order on a plea filed by airport ground handling firm, Ex. Armymen's Protection Services Ltd, challenging the Centre's decision to cancel its security clearance without giving any reason.

The Centre had contended that reasons for cancelling security clearance cannot be disclosed to the company as it pertains to national security.

The bench, after hearing all sides, held that principles of natural justice demands that fair and unbiased hearing must be given to an affected party but it can be waived in case of national security.

 Article referred:http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/natural-justice-principles-can-be-waived-in-national-security-matters-sc_914935.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more