Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Use of Suo Moto Powers to Declare Subordinate Legislation Unconstitutional

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court’s exercise of suo moto powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to declare a subordinate legislation unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and non-discrimination.

High Court’s Decision and the Supreme Court's Rationale

The Court endorsed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that it could be presumed the High Court was aware that appointments could not be claimed as a hereditary right. Although there was no formal challenge to the offending proviso, the High Court's decision to strike it down was not considered illegal.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the suo moto power of Constitutional Courts to declare subordinate legislation invalid, especially when it is manifestly against a Fundamental Right, is a vast reserve power. The Court observed that while the suo moto power must be exercised sparingly, with due care, caution, and circumspection, it remains an inherent power of the Constitutional Courts under Article 226.

The Court’s Observations on Suo Moto Powers

The Supreme Court stated:
“We see no reason as to why the power to suo motu declare a subordinate legislation invalid, on the ground of its being manifestly contrary to a Fundamental Right read with binding precedents in terms of Article 141, should not be conceded to be within the vast reserve of powers of the Constitutional Courts.”

The Court further emphasized that such powers should be exercised in rare cases where there is egregious violation of a Fundamental Right, especially when the issue has been conclusively addressed by the Supreme Court. The Court stressed that the writ courts must act to safeguard the rights of individuals who have not yet been affected by the unconstitutional subordinate legislation.

Duty of Writ Courts to Deliver Justice

The judgment underscored the duty of writ courts to deliver justice by declaring subordinate legislation void when it egregiously violates Fundamental Rights, even if the issue has not been formally challenged by affected parties. This, the Court noted, is essential to safeguard the rights of those who may be impacted by the legislation in the future.

The Court reiterated that such actions should be taken rarely and only in cases that stand out from the ordinary.

Court Dismisses Appeal

As a result of these observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, effectively upholding the High Court's decision to declare the subordinate legislation unconstitutional.

Additional Observations on Public Employment

In a broader reflection on the current state of public employment in India, the Supreme Court noted that despite nearing 80 years of independence, there are still not enough public jobs generated for eligible candidates. This remark highlights the persistent gap in public employment opportunities for qualified individuals.

Case Title: Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar and Others, 2025