When the vires of a statute is specifically challenged, may a High Court uphold the provision without examining its constitutional validity?

No. Once a specific challenge to the vires is mounted on the ground of infringement of fundamental rights, the High Court must undertake a substantive examination of whether the impugned provision satisfies the constitutional threshold. Upholding the provisions as they stand, without meaningful scrutiny, is a perfunctory and truncated approach.

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — s.3(b) — s.5 — SRO No. 384 of 2009 — Constitution of India — Art.14 — Art.16 — Regularisation of service — Academic arrangement basis — Reasonable classification — Intelligible differentia — Model employer — Constitution of India — Art.14 — Classification of employees — Nomenclature not determinative — Held: Where appointees on an academic arrangement basis discharge duties, tenure and conditions of service identical to ad hoc, contractual or consolidated appointees, they are similarly situated. Denial of equal treatment resting only on the nomenclature of the engagement is impermissible under Article 14. (¶12) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — s.3(b) — Exclusion of academic arrangement appointees — Held further: The exclusion in Section 3(b) lacks an intelligible differentia and bears no rational nexus with the object of regularising long-standing irregular appointments. It results in invidious discrimination and is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14. (¶12, 13) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — s.5 — Second proviso — Qualifying seven years of service — Held further: Once the conditions in Section 5(i) to (v) stand satisfied, the nature of the initial engagement ceases to have any legal relevance. The second proviso is a beneficial provision and must receive purposive interpretation, protecting employees who complete the qualifying service period. (¶12) Constitution of India — Art.14 — Art.16 — State as model employer — Repackaging of contractual engagement — Held further: The State, as a model employer, cannot repackage a substantially similar mode of engagement under a new nomenclature and then deny regularisation. Section 3(b) declared unconstitutional; the State directed to consider the appellants under Section 5. Appeals allowed. (¶13)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of ABHISHEK SHARMA v. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India