STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus THE COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL & ORS

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 17-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 24 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 979 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
v. 
THE COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC 
RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6249-6250 of 2001) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN, D.K. 
JAIN, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
,1·-. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 32 and 226 rlw Article 21 - Fundamental rights 
- Fair and impartial investigation - Judicial Review -
Direction by Supreme Court/High Court to CBI to investigate 
A 
B 
c 
a cognizable offence committed within territorial jurisdiction 
0 
of a State without the consent of the State Government -
HELD: Will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the 
Constitution nor will it violate the doctrine of separation of 
powers, and shall be valid in law - State has a duty to enforce · 
human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial 
E 
investigation - Constitutional courts can exercise its power of 
judicial review and direct CBI to take up investigation within 
the jurisdiction of the State - However, this extra ordinary 
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in 
exceptional situations only when the Court after considering 
the material on record ·comes to a conclusion that such 
F 
material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an 
investigation by CBI or any other similar agency - Restriction 
on Parliament by the Constitution and on the Executive by 
Parliament under an enactment do not amount to restriction 
on power of Judiciary under Articles 32 and 226 -
The 
G 
restriction imposed by s. 6 of the Special Police Act on the 
powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the 
powers of the constitutional courts - Delhi Special Police 
Establishment Act, 1946, ss. 3, 5 and 6 - Investigation. 
979 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Articles 13, 32, 142, 144 and 226 - Judicial Review -
Nature and scope of - HELO: The Constitution expressly 
confers the power of judicial review on the Supreme Court and 
: High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively - In view 
of the constitutional scheme and the jurisdiction conferred on 
. B the Supreme Court under Article 32 and on High Courts under 
Article 226, the power of judicial review being an integral part 
and essential feature of the Constitution constituting its basic 
structure, no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the 
powers of the constitutional courts with regard to the 
c enforcement of fundamental rights - Besides supremacy of 
the Constitution, separation of powers between Legislature, -· 
Executive and Judiciary constitutes basic feature of the 
· 
Constitution - Nevertheless, judicial review stands entirely on 
a different pedestal - Judicial review is essential for resolving 
0 the disputes regarding the limits of constitutional power and 
entering the constitutional limitations as an ultimate 
interpreter of the Constitution - Judicial review of laws is 
embedded in the Constitution by virtue of Article 13 read with 
'" Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution - It acts as the final 
arbiter not only to give effect to the distribution of legislative 
E powers between the Parliament and the State Legislatures, it 
is also necessary to show any transgression by each entity -
Significance of and difference between power of Supreme 
Court under Articles 32, 142 and 144 and that of High Court 
under Article 226 - Explained - Doctrines - Separation of 
'F 
powers - Basic structure the~ry- Principle of constitutionality. 
\ 
Articles 245 and 246 rlw Seventh Schedule, List I, Entries 
2-A a11~ 80 - List II, Entry 2, List Ill and Articles 32 and 226 -
Legislative powers of Parliament and State Legislatures -
G Judicial review of- HELD: The broad proposition is that under 
the Constitution there is a clear demarcation of legislative 
powers between the Union and the States and they have to 
confine themselves within the field entrusted to them -
However, the words "notwithstanding anything contained in 
H 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION 
981 
OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL 
clauses (2) and (3)" in Article 246 (1) and the words "subject 
A 
to clauses (1) and (2)" in Article 246 (3) lay down the principle 
of federal supremacy viz. that in case of inevitable conflict 
between Union and State powers, the Union power as 
enumerated in List I shall prevail over the State power as 
enumerated in Lists II and Ill and in case of an overlapping 
B 
between Lists II and Il
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.