Tag: #WritPetition

The bench of justices TS Sivagnanam and S Ananthi has held that “the authorities unmindful of the heritage value of various temples had licenses and leased out the temple property as well as the programs and verandas of the temples to traders to carry on trading activity by selling articles which are unrelated and unconnected with the temple and the worshipping public. These shops have virtually become shopping centers if not shopping malls” the order stated.

The PIL petition which was moved by K Suresh who is vice president of the Dharma Sena he argued that the Kanniyakumari district temple trustee board and the Shree Parameshwara Brahmanandha Theertha Sivangal, Madathipathi of the Munchirai madam be engaged to conduct certain temple rituals for the Arulmighu Adhikesavan temple which he stated was mandated as per scriptures of the temple.

The petitioner argued that the temple is not being maintained properly and the Pooja and rituals were not being conducted regularly as per scriptures.

Further, the court observed that the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department had a duty to maintain the temple and preserve its heritage. The court also agreed to petitioner contentions made that the temples in Tamil Nadu where the Pooja are not being performed due to lack of funds.

The court expressed its inability to allow petitioner prayer and directed them to approach the appropriate forum to get his grievances addressed. The court proceeded to dispose off the writ petition.

-Report by ANAND PATIL

Kirechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiyalal Shukla, two journalists from Manipur and Chhattisgarh, filed writ petitions at the Supreme Court requesting the court for a writ, order, or direction ordering Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to be ruled unconstitutional and void. Counsel representing the two petitioners submitted to the Supreme Court that its decision in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962, may need to be reconsidered wherein the constitutional validity of the section was upheld.

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code states that anyone who seeks to incite hatred or contempt for the government established by law in India through words, whether spoken or written, signs or visible representation, or any other means, shall be punished with imprisonment for life.

According to the petition, the restriction imposed by section 124A is irrational, hence, does not constitute a valid restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It infringes the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Section 124A is extraneous to safeguard state security and public order.

Meanwhile, the Foundation of Media Professionals, journalist Shashi Kumar, and legal professor Sanjay S Jain have filed three applications in support of the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the IPC. According to Shashi Kumar in his application, the “vague nature” of section 124A allows it to be used as a “political weapon” to restrict free speech.

Attorney General KK Venugopal of India, who was issued notice on the petition by the court on April 30, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Union of India, both were granted two weeks to file their responses. The court will hear the matter on the 27th of July.

-Report by VANESSA RODRIGUES

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, refuses to grant custody of a ‘minor’ husband to his wedded ‘major’ wife. The Hon’ble Court says that such an act would amount to an offence under the POCSO Act. The bench headed by Justice J.J Muneer, is of the view, that the marriage between a minor and major is voidable at the option of the party, as given under the POCSO Act and if allowed to stay together, it would result in sanctioning cohabitation between a minor and major.

Petitioner’s Contention

The petitioner, named as Haushila Devi, is the mother of Manish, age 16 years and who is also made as to the petitioner number one by her mother, alleges in hon’ble court that the respondents, namely, Jyoti and her family members forced her son into procuring matrimonial ties with Jyoti, who is a major and is also the respondent number one in the aforesaid case. The learned counsel on behalf of Haushila Devi, claims that her son, Manish has been illegally confined in the house of the respondents, and the conspiracy of the said offence is carried by Jyoti, her mother Pamila Devi, and her two brothers. The petitioner has filed a writ of habeas corpus (to produce the body) in the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to retain the care and custody of the minor child, Manish, back to her mother who is also the natural guardian of Manish, as claimed by the petitioner number two, Haushila Devi. The learned counsel argues further, that, Manish being a minor of age 16 years is under no competence to enter into any such life-long holy agreements like marriage. They claim that the marriage so performed is void under the provisions laid down in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The petitioner further claims that since Manish is a minor as per the law, hence, he cannot be entrusted with the decision-making choice of residing with the strangers, thereby the care and custody should be handed over to the natural guardian, i.e.- her mother, Haushila Devi, also the petitioner number two in the said case.

Respondent’ Contention

The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents, i.e.- Jyoti and her family members, contends that the legislature did not outlay any such provisions of the aftermath about the marriage being solemnized in breach of section 5 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He argues that the marriage is neither void nor voidable, but valid. As per the law, the penal punishment would be inflicted upon the party who was a major at the time of the commission of such foul act. The learned counsel is of the view that if both the party is minor at the time of such acts, then their parents upon whom the responsibility was bestowed, would be dealt as per the law. He further argues that no matter who suffers the penal consequences, the marriage cannot be solemnized being void or voidable. The learned counsel says that holding a marriage to be void under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, it should strictly adhere to the stipulations laid down under section 12 of the said Act, else the marriage could be declared as voidable at the option of the party who was minor at the time of marriage. The respondents argued through their learned counsel that Manish who is a minor of 16 years, is about to attain majority and hence, should be bestowed upon with the responsibility of residing with whomsoever he chooses. Section 17 of the Wards Act, 1890 lays down the provision for the minor to chose his/her natural guardian through their own. Therefore since Manish does not want to stay wither mother, he cannot be compelled by the hon’ble court to do so.

Judgment

The bench of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, led by Justice J.J Muneer, in the aforesaid case of Manish and Anr v. State of U.P. and 7 others, that the marriage in the said case is voidable at the option of the party who is a minor, i.e.- Manish of age 16 years. The Hon’ble court said it loud and clear that they cannot allow the care and custody of the Manish to be entrusted with his wife as it would originate an event that could facilitate the cohabitation between the minor and the major, regarded as an offence under the POCSO Act, 2006. The court even considered the essential fact of the POCSO Act, that it prevents any sort of cohabitation between the major and the minor. The Lordship also highlighted the sections under the POCSO Act, which defines the offence and also inlays the penal consequences, under sections 3 & 4 respectively, irrespective of the age or sex of the offender. The Hon’ble court ordered to send the minor into the state facilities like ‘Child Home’ to reside till he attains the age of 18 years and thereby he can choose with whom to reside after completion of his age as major. If he still chooses to stay with her mother during the said period, he would have to apply the Child Welfare Committee Act, 2012. The order should comply immediately.

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

INTRODUCTION

On 01.06.2021 the Calcutta High Court in its bench which includes Justice Shekhar B. Sharaf, withinside the case of Bineeta Patnaik Padhi Vs. Union of India & Ors. held that one Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility. It, in addition, said that if the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The gift Writ petition below Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed with the aid of using the petitioner claiming that at the same time as she turned into discharging her obligations because the Principal of Army Public School at Panagarh and at the same time as serving in her tenure as a prolonged probationer, she turned into terminated with the aid of using the chairman of the identical faculty from such published in violation of each her essential rights in addition to positive statutory rights.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ms. Sonal Sinha found out suggest performing on behalf of the petitioner argued on the subsequent grounds:

• The suggest at the same time as concluding prayed earlier than the courtroom docket to invoke the writ of mandamus to implement provider situations of instructors serving in non-public unaided instructional establishments.
• Reliance turned into additionally located upon the choice of the Apex Court at the same time as analyzing the problem of termination of an Assistant Teacher in a non-public unaided group, in which it turned into held that a writ utility is certainly maintainable in such instances whilst opposition to the non-public unaided instructional establishments.
• It turned into emphasized that although the connection between the petitioner and the respondent turned into taken into consideration to have emanated out of a settlement, it’d now no longer close the doorways of this Court in invoking the writ jurisdiction below Article 226 of the Constitution.
• It turned into contended that primarily based totally on diverse choices of the Supreme Court the Right to Education is an essential proper below Article 21 of the charter and consequently denial of the identical might bring about the violation of one’s essential proper.
• It turned into submitted that those non-public establishments supplying training to college students from the age of six years and onwards, along with better training carry out a public responsibility and as a consequence falls below the purview of Article 12.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, found out Additional Solicitor General, performing on behalf of the contesting Respondents argued on the subsequent grounds:

• Mr. Dastoor additionally argued that for the reason that stated faculty turned into a non-public unaided faculty and the AWES that is dealing with it, isn’t a public body, because of the mandate of Article 12 of the Constitution of India consequently the affairs of the stated faculty might be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
• It turned into additionally contended that the jurisdiction below Article 226 should handiest be exercised with the aid of using a constitutional courtroom docket handiest if, an detail of public regulation is worried that is the sine qua non for the invocation of this Court’s powers below Article 226 of the Constitution and such electricity isn’t to be trifled with simple to implement non-public contracts of provider/ or provider associated contracts entered into among aware and ready parties.
• He additionally submitted that there’s neither a contravention of any statutory proper nor any essential proper assured below Part III of the Constitution of India, as alleged with the aid of using the petitioner.
• It turned into argued that such writ utility turned into now no longer maintainable for the cause that the stated faculty is a non-public unaided instructional group operated with the aid of using the Army Welfare Education Society.
• It turned into in addition submitted that the reality that the petitioner turned into serving below a length of prolonged probation and it turned into legally permissible for each the AWES or the stated faculty to assess the petitioner’s overall performance with the aid of using a distinctive feature of her popularity as a probationer, making her eligible for both an affirmation or a discharge from such provider and within side the occasion of a discharge, such settlement couldn’t be enforced thru writ utility below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

OBSERVATION AND JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The following remark has been made with the aid of using the Hon’ble bench of Calcutta High Court:

• If the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.
• In the case of Article 226, similarly to the enforcement of an essential proper, a petitioner also can are searching for the enforcement of any felony proper.
• The stated faculty that is run with the aid of using AWES had come to discharge a public responsibility which stands imposed in phrases of each Article 21A of the Constitution of India in addition to the RTE Act which gave impact to the essential proper in unequivocal phrases.
• A writ of mandamus may be issued to a non-public body/authority which discharges ‘public function’ below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On thinking about the above the objection at the floor of maintainability of the petition turned into rejected. Further, the stated faculty, Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State’ below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility.

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

Madras High Court on Conversion therapy says Conversion therapy should be prohibited. Actions should be taken against the concerned professional involving themselves in any form or method of conversion therapy.

Petitioner’s Contention

The petitioners are a lesbian couple from Madurai. Their parents who are opposing their relationship trying their best to separate the couple. The couple with the support extended by certain NGOs and persons belonging to the queer community-managed data to secure accommodation. They want to continue their education and were also looking for job opportunities meanwhile the parents had filed missing complaints of them. And they also felt the threat to their safety and security from their parents. So the couple filed Writ Petition seeking protection from their parents.

Respondent’s Contention

The parents of the lesbian couple are more concerned about the stigma attached to the relationship in society and the consequences that may ensue on their family. And they are also more concerned about the safety and security of their daughters. They even stated that they would prefer their daughters to a life of celibacy than being in a same-sex relationship.

Judgment

On 7th June Justice Anand Venkatesh has passed a landmark judgment giving direction and recommendation to prohibit the attempt to cure people medically and seeing the queer community problem as a medical issue. He pointed out that ignorance is no justification for normalizing any discrimination. He also suggested comprehensive measures to sensitize the society and various branches of the state including the Police and judiciary to remove prejudices against the queer society.

Key Highlights

• In the above case to provide fairness and righteousness, Justice Anand Venkatesh himself took psychological counseling to understand the mindset and relationship of the queer community.
• This Madras High Court prohibited Conversion therapy which is a big relief for the LGBT Community.
• Tamil Nadu is set to become the first Indian state to ban ‘conversion therapy.

What expectation role was play by Justice Anand Venkatesh in the above matter?

Justice Anand Venkatesh revealed that he belonged to the majority one who had hesitation in accepting same-sex relationship completely and also revealed that he had voluntarily taken counseling with Vidya Dinakaran, a Psychologist, for understanding the subject of homosexuality to pass the correct judgment.

What measures and suggestions were issued?

• Ensure availability of gender-neutral restrooms for the gender-nonconforming student.
• Change of name and gender on academic records for transgender persons.
• Inclusion of ‘transgender’ in addition to M and F gender columns in application forms for admission, competitive entrance exams, etc.
• Appointment of counselors who are LGBTQIA+ inclusive, for the staff and students to address grievances, if any, and to provide effective solutions for the same.

What directions were given to the police authority?

The court directed police authority to hold programs for the protection and prevention of offences in the queer community. And other programmers for awareness.

The one who issues belongingness in the queer community. Who can they approach?

People who face such issues of belonging should approach any of the enlisted NGOs for protecting their rights and seek help from them.

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

Introduction

Proceedings withinside the present suo motu writ petition had been initiated on 22 April 2021, while this Court took consciousness of the control of the COVID-19 pandemic at some stage in the second wave. Subsequently, hearings had been performed on 23 April 2021, 27 April 2021, and 30 April 2021 while submissions had been heard on behalf of the Union of India, States/Union Territories, found out Amici appointed through this Court and a number of the intervenors

Since the remaining listening to on this matter, the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has begun out receding throughout the state and the scenario seems to have come to be extra manageable. Hence, a number of the problems mentioned withinside the preceding orders can watch for similar deliberation. However, the problem of vaccination is surely crucial, because fitness professionals globally agree that vaccination of the state’s complete eligible populace is the singular maximum critical project inefficaciously preventing the COVID-19 pandemic withinside the lengthy run. Hence, at some stage in the direction of the court cases on 31 May 2021, this Court has restricted itself to listening to submissions at the UoI’s vaccination coverage and its roadmap for the future. By manner of plentiful clarification, we observe that every one of the problems contained on this Court’s preceding orders nonetheless holds their universal importance, and this Court shall keep to screen them along with the National Task Force and intrude each time necessary.

Submission by Counsel

Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, based on the affidavit of the UoI dated May 9, 2021, has filed the following additions in the light of recent updates:

• The vaccination campaign will be completed by the end of December 2021, and the central government is leading at the highest political and level Active diplomatic talks with foreign vaccine manufacturers to ensure sufficient vaccine supplies;
• It would be wrong to suggest that one consequence of the updated UoI directive on vaccinating 18-44-year-olds is that there will be competition between states / UT; and
• Anyone over 45 can continue to be vaccinated at a center by registering on-site without pre-booking an appointment through CoWIN.

Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, discovered Senior suggests and Amici, have raised the subsequent troubles referring to vaccination distribution, augmentation of vaccine manufacturing and differential pricing of vaccines, and the destiny preparedness for handling the COVID-19 pandemic:

• With admire to the procurement of vaccines, reviews endorse that overseas vaccine producer are commonly now no longer receptive or open to a speak with State/UT Governments on the premise that, as a rely upon company coverage, they handiest cope with federal governments of various countries;
• The UIP has been changed through the Liberalized Pricing and Accelerated National COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy from 1 May 2021 in segment three of the vaccination force.

National Vaccination Policy

Phase 1 of the National COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy become released on sixteen January 2021 and 1 February 2021 and become centered closer to shielding HCWs and FLWs. Phase 2 become initiated on 1 March 2021 and 1 April 2021, and become directed closer to shielding the maximum susceptible populace withinside the age organization of men and women above forty-five years of age. In sections 1 and 2, the UoI become buying the vaccines and dispensing them to the States/UTs freed from fee for disbursal thru authorities and personal COVID-19 vaccination centers. The personal centers had been now no longer allowed to price a sum above Rs 250 in step with an individual in step with dose (Rs a hundred and fifty for vaccines and Rs a hundred as operational charges) from a beneficiary.

Separation of Powers

First, we try to clarify the nature of the court’s jurisdiction over the administration of the COVID-19 pandemic in India.​​​ The affidavit dated May 9, 2021, listed the following points:

• The current vaccination policy is in line with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and does not require court intervention, because the administrative department has “room for maneuver” in the face of such a large-scale epidemic;
• Continue to take measures to deal with the imminent crisis, In the long run, this may be reckless; however, they should be fully evaluated in the short term;
• Judicial review of administrative guidelines is only allowed in completely arbitrary circumstances. When executives need expert medical and scientific advice to solve a medical crisis, procedures need to be adopted;
• In the absence of professional advice or management experience, any excessive, albeit in good faith, judicial intervention may lead to undesirable situations. There is almost no room for managers to find innovative solutions.

Issues with the Liberalized Vaccination Policy

1.Vaccine Logistics

We have already stated that attributable to the Liberalized Vaccination Policy, the obligation for the vaccination in segment three is being divided among the Central Government (for the ones above forty-five years of age, HCWs and FLWs) and the State/UT Government together with the non-public hospitals (for the age institution of 18-forty four years). This could suggest that the constrained vaccine logistics to be had in a State/UT could be shared among the State/UT Government and the Central Government. This isn’t the same as the state of affairs beneath neath the UIP, wherein the Central Government buys and allocates vaccines to States/UTs, as a way to make certain that their bloodless garage centers aren’t overwhelmed. Hence, we direct the UoI to offer the subsequent clarifications:

• The way wherein bloodless garage gadget capability is being balanced among the Central and State/UT Governments. The way wherein the States/UTs are dealing with the logistical burden for vaccinating men and women elderly among 18-forty four years, together with men and women elderly over forty-five years.
• Whether bloodless garage centers in India have improved for the COVID-19 vaccination drive; the prevailing numbers, and evaluation with the numbers previous to March 2020;
• Whether the bloodless garage gadget is indigenously synthetic or is imported. If it’s far imported, the stairs that have been taken to begin indigenous manufacturing.

3.Digital Divide

In our order dated 30 April 2021, we had highlighted the issues regarding the cap potential of the marginalized participants of society to avail of vaccination, completely via a virtual portal within side the face of a virtual divide. The UoI’s affidavit made the subsequent submissions in terms of the accessibility of the CoWIN portal:

• The CoWIN portal allows one individual to sign in four folks the usage of the equal cellular wide variety;
• Walk-ins can not be accredited because of the shortage of vaccines and fears of overcrowding at centers. The online registration requirement counters this worry and additionally efficaciously video display units the management of the second dose. The coverage can be re-taken into consideration in the end whilst extra vaccines are to be had.

It has been delivered to our be aware that the CoWIN platform isn’t handy to folks with visible disabilities. The internet site suffers from positive accessibility obstacles which have to be addressed. These encompass:

• Audio or textual content captcha isn’t to be had;
• The seven filters, which inter alia, encompass age group, call of vaccine, and whether or not the vaccine is paid or free, aren’t designed accessibly. This problem may be addressed with the aid of using the introduction of a drop-down list;
• While visually challenged folks can decide the wide variety of to be had vaccine slots, one can not discover the day the ones slots correspond to. This may be resolved with the aid of using making sure that desk headers correspond to related cells.

Conclusion

We direct the UoI to report a testimony, which shall cope with the troubles and questions raised in Section E, in which it shall make certain that every problem is answered to in my opinion and no problem is neglected out. We additionally direct that the affidavit ought to offer the subsequent information:

• The records on the proportion of populace that has been vaccinated (with one dose and each dose), as towards eligible folks withinside the first 3 stages of the vaccination drive. This shall encompass records relating the proportion of rural populace in addition to the proportion of city populace so vaccinated;
• The whole records at the Central Government’s buy records of all of the COVID-19 vaccines until date (Covaxin, Covishield, and Sputnik V). The records ought to make clear: (a) the dates of all procurement orders positioned via way of means of the Central Government for all three vaccines; (b) the number of vaccines ordered as on every date; and (c) the projected date of supply.

We additionally notice that UoI’s said to function in its affidavit dated nine May 2021 is that each State/UT Government shall offer vaccination freed from fee to its populace. Person State/UT Governments must confirm/deny this function earlier than this Court. Further, if they have determined to vaccinate their populace free of charge then, as a rely upon principle, it’s far critical that this coverage is annexed to their affidavit, so that the populace inside their territories may be confident in their proper to be vaccinated free of charge at a State vaccination center. Hence, we direct every of the State/UT Governments to additionally report a testimony within 2 weeks, wherein they shall make clear their function and place on file their policies.

……………………………………J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

……………………………………J. [L Nageswara Rao]

……………………………………J. [S Ravindra Bhat]

New Delhi.

Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (FMGE) is a licensure examination conducted by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) in India. The test is one of the mandatory requirements for an Indian citizen who has a medical degree from a college outside India to practice medicine in the country.

An instant Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the Association of MD Physicians through its president Dr. Rajesh Rajan asking for the postponement of the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination, which is scheduled to be held in mid-June, on account of the dangerous pandemic prevailing in the country.

Kirtiman Singh, the counsel representing the National Board of Examination, stated that the examination is conducted twice a year by Indian authorities to confer a right of licensure on doctors who have a foreign degree and that the examination has been taking place all through the pandemic. He further contended that 18,600 candidates have already registered to take the examination in June and if the petitioners do not want to write the exam right now, they can take it in December as there is no cap on the number of attempts this exam. He informed the Court that the exam is going to be conducted in around 52 cities at around 98 centers all over India and that all necessary precautions are being taken in conducting the examination.

The bench of Justice Amit Bansal listed the matter for further hearing on 11th June 2020 and meanwhile asked the petitioner and the respondents to place on record the relevant documents relied upon them during arguments.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

Delhi High Court on 3rd June 2021 quashed the Writ of student which claims a clause of CBSE Examination bye-laws to be unconditional.

Petitioner’s Contention

A Petitioner who is a minor child files a writ petition through her father. Her petition states that there has been an error in the recording of her parent’s name and which one of the bye-laws of the CBSE Examination doesn’t allow so. She mentions that her parent’s names have been recorded incorrectly as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav instead of Hari Singh and Mamta. In her birth certificate, their name has been recorded the as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav. It was stated in the petition if she is not been allowed to correct this error then it will lead to the violation of the fundamental right to education and she will also not be allowed for higher education. In the appeal, the constitutionality of the bye-law has been challenged by the petitioner.

Respondent’s Contention

Respondent is contented by the counsel that C.B.S.E. is an autonomous and independent body and so will not be compliant to the writ jurisdiction. As CBSE is an autonomous society that is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The counsel of Respondent has also mentioned that the C.B.S.E is not entitled with either the power or resources to verify the details of every candidate independently and they have to rely upon the records which are given to them by the schools. It should that there has been an error on behalf of the parents.

Judgment

In the judgment court, Justice Manmohan held that the parents of the petitioner consciously and consequently choose to fill in their names as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav and Mamta Yadav in the school records. And the petition cannot deal with the challenge of the constitutionality of the bye-laws as petitioners are the ones who are at fault as they have repeated this mistake on many occasions. It held that the change of names shouldn’t be permitted as they chose to fill those names on their wish and account. The court also stated that the grounds of challenging the constitutionality are increasing nowadays even though the Petitioner is a default themselves. So the court quashed the following Writ Petition by saying that the petitioner’s parents are at fault.

What were the issues in the above case?

• Whether the Writ can be issued against CBSE?
• Whether the current petition can challenge the constitutional validity?

When can constitutionality be challenged?

The constitutional validity of any Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz

• Lack of legislative competence
• Violation of any of the fundamental rights

Explain Article 226

• Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders, or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, or any of them.