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

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.