High Court Affirms Constitutional Supremacy, Rebukes Superiority Claims
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphatically declared the Constitution of India as the supreme authority, asserting that no single organ of the State—judiciary, legislature, or executive—holds a superior position over the others. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri delivered this significant judgment while addressing a batch of petitions challenging departmental actions against employees of power companies in Haryana [Suresh Pal v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others].
Justice Puri Underscores Dynamic Nature of Law, Constitution’s Primacy
Justice Puri emphasized the evolving nature of law and society, contrasting it with England’s unwritten constitutional framework. He unequivocally stated, “In India, there are three organs of the State i.e. the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. None of the organs of the State is superior to the other. The sole superiority vests in the Constitution of India and hence, the Constitution of India is supreme.”
Court Cautions Against Avoidable Litigation, Stresses Natural Justice
The Court acknowledged judicial review as a fundamental aspect of India’s legal system but strongly cautioned administrative bodies against burdening the courts with unnecessary litigation arising from legal ignorance. The judgment highlighted the critical importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in all administrative proceedings. “Infringement or breach of principles of natural justice in any form need to be corrected through Courts and at the same time, these principles are required to be inculcated and imbibed in the deciding authorities, who are judicial, quasi-judicial and purely administrative authorities in order to meet the Constitutional goals and to uphold the Rule of Law,” the Court asserted.
“Let the Court Decide” Syndrome Criticized
Justice Puri also addressed a concerning trend he termed the “‘let the Court decide’ syndrome’ prevalent within public sector undertakings in service-related cases. He criticized administrative authorities for allegedly abdicating their responsibilities by issuing adverse orders against employees and leaving the final decision to the courts. “This syndrome has led to increase in avoidable litigation,” the judgment noted.
Call for Enhanced Legal Education and Training
To counter this trend, the Court proposed proactive measures such as improved legal education, comprehensive training, and greater accountability within administrative bodies. It specifically identified a “lack of knowledge of basic principles in the field of administrative law” as a significant factor contributing to this issue.
Directive for Mandatory Administrative Law Training for Civil Servants
In a significant directive, the Court mandated that the Central government ensure thorough training in administrative law for civil servants. “Consequently, the Union of India is hereby directed to ensure that in the Training Institutes for Civil Servants including Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, adequate and in-depth training and education be imparted in the subject of Administrative Law by a dedicated faculty on the subject. Thereafter, regular refresher courses be also conducted from time to time. Professors, Legal Practitioners, Research Scholars or other suitable resource persons be also associated from time to time.”
Key Directives to Address Service Matter Issues
Furthermore, to tackle recurring problems in service matters, the Court issued several specific instructions, including:
- Powers must be exercised solely by the vested authority; unauthorized orders are invalid (“coram non-judice”).
- Orders lacking detailed reasoning are deemed illegal and violative of Article 14.
- Orders created by “copy-pasting” previous orders are considered illegal and arbitrary.
Power Utilities Ordered to Undertake Environmental Remediation
Considering the conduct of the power utilities involved, the Court also directed them to undertake environmental remediation by planting a total of 50,000 trees with medicinal value across Haryana within six months. The distribution is ordered as 30,000 trees by UHBVNL, 10,000 by DHBVNL, and 10,000 by HVPNL.
Legal Representation
Senior Advocate Rajiv Atma Ram represented some of the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with Senior Panel Counsel Krishna Dayama appeared for the Union of India. Senior Advocate Puneet Jindal represented the power companies in the case.
