Procedimiento Escrito de TrabajoDescripción completa
Full description
Descripción: Ingles
1ST LAW GURU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED I.
THAT THE SLP IS MAINTAINABLE.
The substantial question of law with regard to constitutional interpretation provides a valid condition[A]necessitating adjudication of substantial question of law [B]as the court can decide the same inspite of it being a policy decisions [C] A. That all the necessary conditions of Special Leave Petition are satisfied.
The petitioner has locus standi to approach the Honourable Supreme Court in the present case. Article 136 of the Constitution is couched in the widest phraseology. 1 This Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion.2The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are corrective one and not a restrictive one. 3 It is pertinent to note that the scope of Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear “in any cause or matter”. 4 The plenitude of power under Article 136 of the Constitution has been authoritatively stated by the Constitution Bench in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors .5 Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that there is injustice.6In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, 7 it was held that a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons, some of which are as follows: (i) If the Petition is barred by time; (ii) If the Petition is presented in a defective manner; (iii) The petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition; (iv) The conduct of the petitioner disentitling him to any indulgence by the court;(v) The question raised by the petitioner for consideration by this Court being not fit for consideration or deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court. In the instant case, it is obvious on a prima-facie level that the Appellants have no grounds on which the instant petition for special leave could be rejected.
1
Nihal Singh &Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26. Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 520; Associated Cement Companies Ltd v. P.N. Sharma, (1965) 2 SCR 366. 3 Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359 (SC). 4 Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169. 5 Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors AIR 1954 SC 520. 6 C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR1989 SC 1298; N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss &ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196; Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036. 7 Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 2
