Rajeev Mehra v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The single-judge bench of Jayant Nath, J., quashed a notification issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, citing prior precedents that held such unreviewed continuations infringe citizen liberty and subvert Parliamentary law.
What did the court decide?
Notification is set aside and writ petition is allowed as prayed for.
What the court decided
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(C) 2596/2007
RAJEEV MEHRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Vijay Kr.Aggarwal with Mr.Neeraj Kr.Jha, Ms.Barkha Rastogi, Advs. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Aditya Swarup, Mr.Sanyog Bahadur and Mr.Shekhar Budakoti, Advs. for GNCTD.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
%
O R D E R 18.01.2016
At the outset, we would like to record the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the additional grounds raised vide CM No.16918/2014, the competence of the State Government to issue notification without assent of the Lieutenant Governor is not pressed.
Therefore, we deem it appropriate that the impugned notification is required to be considered only on the ground that such a notification can be issued under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. This issue can no longer be res integra in view of the decision of this Court in Narender Kumar vs. State 2004 (1) JCC 303 wherein it has been held:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned notification issued under Section 10 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 without review can be sustained.
Whether continuation of such notification without reviewing the situation is an affront to liberty and law.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajeev Mehra
- respondent
State
Coram
Jayant Nath
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court