Suits Involving a Substantial Question of Law as to the Interpretation of the Constitution or as to the Validity of any Statutory Instrument

Introduction:

Constitutional interpretation refers to the process of understanding and applying the principles laid out in a constitution. It involves deciphering the meaning of constitutional provisions, often in the context of specific legal cases. This interpretation is crucial in shaping the application and impact of laws within a country.

On the other hand, the validity of a statutory instrument involves assessing whether a particular law or regulation aligns with the authority granted by the constitution. Statutory instruments are laws created by government agencies to implement, interpret, or supplement existing statutes. The judiciary plays a key role in scrutinizing these instruments to ensure they adhere to constitutional principles.

So, in a nutshell, constitutional interpretation and the validation of statutory instruments are essential aspects of the legal system, ensuring that laws align with the overarching principles set forth in a constitution.

Constitutional interpretation is like decoding the legal DNA of a nation. Imagine the constitution as a blueprint, laying out the fundamental values, rights, and principles that govern a society. However, like any good blueprint, it requires skilled interpreters—usually judges—to navigate its intricacies. This process involves delving into the historical context, the framers' intentions, and the evolving societal norms to extract meaning and relevance.

Courts often face complex scenarios where the literal text of the constitution may be open to multiple interpretations. Judges must weigh different perspectives, consider precedent, and anticipate the implications of their decisions on the legal landscape.

Now, let's shift our gaze to statutory instruments. These are like the supporting actors in the legal drama. While the constitution provides the overarching framework, statutory instruments are the detailed scripts, enacted by government agencies to flesh out the statutory laws. Think of them as the regulations and rules that give life and specificity to broader legislative acts.

Ensuring the validity of these statutory instruments is critical. It's not just about dotting the i's and crossing the t's; it's about ensuring that these regulations align with the constitutional authority granted to the government. Courts play a watchdog role, ensuring that these instruments don't overstep their bounds, maintaining a delicate balance between government power and individual rights.

In essence, constitutional interpretation and the validation of statutory instruments are the dynamic duo of the legal world, working in tandem to uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.

Rule 1 Order XXVII A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Notice to the Attorney General or the Advocate- General"

In any suit in which it appears to the court that any such question as is referred to in clause (1) of article 132, read with article 147, of the Constitution, is involved, the court shall not proceed to determine that question until after notice has been given to the Attorney-General for India, if the question of law concerns the Central Government and to the Advocate-General of the State if the question of law concerns a State Government.

In legal proceedings, a "Notice to Attorney-General" or "Advocate-General" under the Civil Procedure Code typically refers to the formal communication or notification sent to the government's legal representatives. In many jurisdictions, the Attorney General or Advocate General represents the government's interests in legal matters.

When such a notice is served, it's often an essential step in litigation involving the government. It informs the government's legal representatives about the legal proceedings, allowing them an opportunity to participate, defend, or take necessary action. This ensures that the government is aware of and can respond to legal claims or disputes in which it has a stake.

The inclusion of government authorities in legal proceedings is significant due to the principle of sovereign immunity, which protects the government from certain legal actions unless it consents to be sued. The notice serves as a formal and procedural way to involve the government in the legal process and maintain transparency in legal matters involving public interests.

In legal proceedings, especially those involving the government, the Notice to the Attorney-General or Advocate-General plays a crucial role in ensuring due process, transparency, and the protection of the government's interests. To comprehend its significance, we must first understand the key players and the legal landscape it operates within.

The Attorney-General and Advocate-General are legal luminaries representing the government in various jurisdictions. The Attorney-General typically represents the federal government, while the Advocate-General serves a similar role at the state level. These legal officers are not only the chief legal advisors to the government but also act as custodians of the public interest in legal matters.

Now, let's bring in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a legal framework that governs the procedure of civil suits and legal proceedings in many jurisdictions. The CPC is the roadmap that ensures fair and just adjudication of disputes in civil matters. Within this framework, the provision for serving notice to the Attorney-General or Advocate-General becomes a procedural necessity in cases where the government has a stake.

The rationale behind this notice requirement lies in the principle of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that shields the government and its entities from being sued without its consent. By serving a notice to the Attorney-General or Advocate-General, the legal system acknowledges the unique position of the government in legal proceedings and seeks its informed participation.

The notice serves as a formal communication, alerting the government's legal representatives about the impending legal action. It outlines the nature of the case, the claims made, and the relief sought. This information is crucial for the government to assess the implications of the legal action and decide on its course of action.

One of the primary objectives of serving notice is to provide the government with an opportunity to participate in the legal proceedings. This participation ensures that the government's perspective is heard, and its interests are adequately represented. It aligns with the fundamental principles of justice and fairness, preventing situations where judgments are rendered without considering the government's stance.

The involvement of the government in legal proceedings is not just a formality; it goes to the heart of democratic governance and the rule of law. It upholds the idea that no one, not even the government, is above the law. The notice requirement acts as a check and balance, affirming that the government is subject to the same legal processes as any other litigant.

In cases where the government decides to contest the legal action, the Attorney-General or Advocate-General may take several steps. They could file a response, presenting the government's defense and legal arguments. They may also choose to intervene as a party to the suit, actively participating in the proceedings. This participation could involve presenting evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and making legal submissions.

The notice to the Attorney-General or Advocate-General is not just about defending the government's interests; it's also about protecting the public interest. Government actions often have far-reaching consequences on the general populace. Whether it's a policy decision, a regulatory change, or a public project, legal challenges can impact the implementation and outcome. By involving the government in legal proceedings, the notice requirement ensures that the broader public interest is considered and safeguarded.

In addition to defending the government, the Attorney-General or Advocate-General may also play a role in resolving disputes through alternative means. They might explore options for settlement, negotiation, or mediation to avoid protracted litigation. This aligns with the broader goal of the legal system to promote efficient and fair resolution of disputes.

The notice requirement is not a one-size-fits-all provision. Its application may vary based on the nature of the case, the legal system in place, and the specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in a given jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions may have specific rules outlining when and how the notice should be served, while others may rely on established legal principles.

It's worth noting that the notice to the Attorney-General or Advocate-General is not a mere technicality; it's a procedural safeguard. Failure to comply with this requirement could have serious consequences for the legal proceedings. Courts may stay or dismiss a case if the government's legal representatives were not properly notified, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural rules.

This procedural step also underscores the interconnectedness of the legal system. Legal proceedings are not isolated events; they are part of a larger framework that involves various actors, each with distinct roles and responsibilities. The notice to the Attorney-General or Advocate-General is a thread that weaves through this intricate tapestry, connecting the government to the broader canvas of justice.

In conclusion, the Notice to Attorney-General or Advocate-General under the Civil Procedure Code is not just a legal technicality; it's a fundamental aspect of the legal system that reflects the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law. It ensures the active participation of the government in legal proceedings, balancing the scales of justice and upholding the interests of both the government and the public. As we navigate the complexities of the legal landscape, this notice requirement stands as a testament to the inclusive and participatory nature of the legal system, where even the mightiest entity—the government—is bound by the threads of due process and accountability.

Rule 1A Order XXVII of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Procedure in suits involving validity of any statutory instrument"

In any suit in which it appears to the court that any question as to the validity of any statutory instrument, not being a question of the nature mentioned in rule 1, is involved, the court shall not proceed to determine that question except after giving notice—

(a) to the government pleader, if the question concerns the government, or

(b) to the authority which issued the statutory instrument, if the question concerns an authority other than Government.

The detailed procedure in suits involving the validity of any statutory instrument according to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

a. Pleadings and Plaint:

The legal journey begins with the plaintiff filing a plaint. This is a formal document outlining the claims, grounds for the suit, and the relief sought. The plaintiff needs to specifically challenge the validity of a statutory instrument in the pleadings. This involves detailing the provisions of the statutory instrument that are being contested and providing legal arguments against its validity.

b. Notice to the Government:

Given that the suit involves the validity of a statutory instrument, the plaintiff is required to serve notice to the government, typically through the Attorney-General or the Advocate-General, depending on whether it's a federal or state matter. This notice serves as a formal communication alerting the government about the legal challenge and providing an opportunity for the government to participate in the proceedings.

c. Appearance by Government:

After receiving the notice, the government has the option to appear and defend its position. This involves filing a written statement outlining its stance on the validity of the statutory instrument.The government may raise preliminary objections or present arguments on the merits of the case.

d. Framing of Issues:

The court then formulates the specific points of dispute, known as "issues." These issues help define the scope of the trial and guide the parties in presenting evidence and arguments.

e. Evidence:

Both parties are given the opportunity to present evidence supporting their respective positions. This can include documents, expert testimony, or any other relevant material. The court evaluates the evidence presented to determine the validity of the statutory instrument.

f. Legal Arguments:

The parties present legal arguments based on the evidence and legal principles. This is a crucial phase where the validity of the statutory instrument is debated. The court considers constitutional provisions, legislative intent, and any relevant legal precedents.

g. Final Arguments:

Once the evidence and legal arguments are presented, the parties make final submissions summarizing their case. This is the last opportunity to persuade the court on the validity of the statutory instrument.

h. Judgment:

The court delivers its judgment, wherein it decides whether the statutory instrument in question is valid or not. The judgment is based on the interpretation of constitutional provisions, statutory law, and legal principles. If the court finds the statutory instrument valid, the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. If the court declares it invalid, it may specify the consequences or provide directions for rectification.

i. Appeals:

Either party has the right to appeal the judgment if they are dissatisfied with the outcome. The appeal process involves presenting the case before a higher court, which reviews the lower court's decision.

j. Enforcement of Judgment:

If the judgment declares the statutory instrument invalid and requires corrective action, the court may issue orders for enforcement. This could involve quashing the instrument, directing legislative amendments, or other appropriate remedies.

Rule 2 Order XXVII A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Court may add Government as party" The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order that the Central Government or a State Government shall be added as a defendant in any suit involving any such question as is referred to in clause (1) of Article 132 read with Article 147, of the Constitution, if the Attorney General for India or the Advocate-General of the State, as the case may be, whether upon receipt of notice under rule 1, or otherwise, applies for such addition and the Court is satisfied that such addition is necessary or desirable for the satisfactory determination of the question of law involved.

Adding the government as a party to a legal proceeding under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is a significant process that ensures the government's involvement in cases where its interests are at stake. Here's a detailed explanation of how the court may add the government as a party:

a. Initiation of Proceedings:

The legal journey usually begins with a party (plaintiff) filing a plaint or initiating legal proceedings. The plaintiff outlines their claims, grounds, and relief sought.

b. Identification of Government Interest:

If during the course of the proceedings, it becomes evident that the government has a substantial interest in the matter, the court may decide to add the government as a party.

c. Application or Sua Sponte Action:

The process of adding the government can be initiated either by an application from one of the parties or by the court itself (sua sponte). If a party believes the government's involvement is necessary, they may file an application requesting the court to add the government as a party.

d. Notice to the Government:

Once the court decides to consider adding the government, it typically issues a notice to the government, usually through the Attorney-General or the Advocate-General, depending on whether it's a federal or state matter. The notice informs the government about the case, the claims made, and the potential impact on its interests.

e. Government's Response:

After receiving the notice, the government has the opportunity to respond. It can choose to intervene in the proceedings by filing a formal application to become a party and to provide its stance on the matter, either supporting or opposing the addition as a party.

f. Court's Consideration:

The court considers the arguments presented by the parties and assesses whether the government's involvement is essential for a fair and just resolution of the case. Factors such as the nature of the case, the government's interest, and the potential impact on public policy are taken into account.

g. Decision to Add the Government:

If the court determines that the government should be added as a party, it passes an order to that effect. This order specifies the government's role in the proceedings and may outline the extent of its involvement.

h. Amendment of Pleadings:

The court may direct the plaintiff to amend their pleadings to include the government as a party. This ensures that all parties are aware of the issues and can adequately present their case.

i. Government's Participation:

Once added as a party, the government actively participates in the proceedings. This involvement can include filing written statements, presenting evidence, and making legal arguments.

j. Impact on Proceedings:

The addition of the government can influence the dynamics of the case. It may lead to a more comprehensive consideration of legal and constitutional issues, especially if the case involves matters of public policy or government actions.

k. Appeals and Further Proceedings:

If any party is dissatisfied with the court's decision to add the government, they may have the right to appeal. The case then proceeds through subsequent stages of the legal process.

l. Enforcement of Judgment:

If the court's judgment has implications for the government, the court may issue orders for enforcement. This could involve specific actions or compliance measures.

m. Public Interest Considerations:

The court, in its discretion, considers the broader public interest when deciding to add the government as a party. This ensures that cases with significant public ramifications receive thorough consideration.

Rule 2A Order XXVII A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Power of Court to add Government or other authority as a defendant in a suit relating to the validity of any statutory instrument"

The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings in any suit involving any such question as is referred to in rule 1A, order that the Government or other authority shall be added as a defendant if the Government pleader or the pleader appearing in the case for the authority which issued the instrument, as the case may be, whether upon receipt of notice under rule 1A or otherwise, applies for such addition, and the Court is satisfied that such addition is necessary or desirable for the satisfactory determination of the question.

The power of a court to add the government or any other authority as a defendant in a suit relating to the validity of any statutory instrument under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is an essential provision that ensures comprehensive adjudication of legal disputes:

a. Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:

The authority for the court to add the government or other authority as a defendant in a suit involving the validity of a statutory instrument is primarily derived from Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

b. Nature of the Suit:

Section 79 specifically comes into play when the subject matter of the suit relates to the validity of any statutory instrument. This could include challenges to the constitutionality, legality, or procedural validity of regulations, orders, or rules framed by government authorities.

c. Court's Discretion:

The power bestowed upon the court by Section 79 is discretionary. It allows the court to exercise its judgment based on the circumstances of the case, ensuring that the government or relevant authority is brought into the legal proceedings when its interests are implicated.

d. Notice to the Government:

Before exercising its power to add the government or other authority, the court may issue notice to the government or authority. This serves the dual purpose of informing them about the legal challenge and giving them an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

e. Consideration of Public Interest:

Courts, in exercising this power, often consider the broader public interest. Matters involving the validity of statutory instruments can have implications for public policy, and the inclusion of the government ensures that the public interest is adequately represented.

f. Application by Party or Sua Sponte:

The court's power to add the government can be triggered by an application from one of the parties involved in the suit. Alternatively, the court may, on its own motion (sua sponte), decide to add the government based on the nature and significance of the case.

g. Government's Right to Be Heard:

In the process of adding the government as a defendant, the court ensures that the government or relevant authority is given the right to be heard. This aligns with the principles of natural justice, allowing all parties to present their case.

h. Impact on Legal Proceedings:

Once added as a defendant, the government actively participates in the legal proceedings. This participation can involve filing written statements, presenting evidence, and making legal arguments in defense of the validity of the statutory instrument.

i. Amendment of Pleadings:

The court may direct the plaintiff to amend their pleadings to include the government or relevant authority as a defendant. This ensures that all parties are on notice and can fully participate in the proceedings.

j. Discretion to Refuse Adding Government:

While the court has the power to add the government as a defendant, it also has the discretion to refuse if it deems it unnecessary or if the circumstances of the case do not warrant such addition.

k. Court's Decision and Judgment:

The court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented by all parties, makes a decision on the validity of the statutory instrument. The judgment may have implications for the government, and the court may issue appropriate orders based on its findings.

l. Appeals and Further Proceedings:

Any party aggrieved by the court's decision, including the government, has the right to appeal. The case may proceed through subsequent stages of the legal process.

m. Public Interest Considerations:

In cases involving the validity of statutory instruments, the court's decision to add the government is often guided by considerations of public interest. This ensures a comprehensive examination of the legal issues and their potential impact on society.

n. Enforcement of Judgment:

If the court's judgment has implications for the government, it may issue orders for enforcement. This could involve specific actions, corrections, or compliance measures.

In essence, Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 empowers the court to bring the government or relevant authority into legal proceedings when the validity of a statutory instrument is challenged. This power ensures a fair and just resolution of disputes by allowing all stakeholders, including the government, to actively participate in the legal process.

Rule 3 Order XXVII A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Costs"

Where, under rule 2 or rule 2A the Government or any other authority is added as a defendant, in a suit, the Attorney-General, Advocate-General, or Government Pleader or Government or other authority shall not be entitled to, or liable for, costs in the Court which ordered the addition unless the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case for any special reason, otherwise orders.

Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the procedure for filing suits by or against the government or public officers. Rule 3 of Order XXVII-A specifically pertains to costs in such suits:

a. Costs in Favor of the Government: Rule 3 establishes that when a decree or order is made in favor of the government, the court may award costs to the government. This means that if the government wins the case, it is entitled to recover the costs incurred in the legal proceedings.

b. Discretion of the Court: The award of costs is at the discretion of the court. The court has the authority to decide the amount of costs to be awarded based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

c. Consideration of Public Interest: In suits involving the government, the court may consider the public interest while deciding on costs. This is in line with the principle that the government often represents public interest, and the costs awarded should be just and fair in the context of the larger public good.

d. Nature of the Suit: The nature of the suit, especially when it involves the government, can vary widely. It could be a constitutional matter, a dispute over government actions, or issues related to public policy. The court takes these factors into account when determining costs.

e. Procedure for Determining Costs: Rule 3 doesn't specify a rigid procedure for determining costs. Instead, it leaves the assessment of costs to the court's discretion, allowing flexibility based on the specifics of each case.

f. Factors Considered in Awarding Costs: The court may consider various factors in deciding the costs, such as the complexity of the case, the legal principles involved, the conduct of the parties, and any other relevant considerations.

g. Recovery of Costs by the Government: If costs are awarded in favor of the government, the court's order allows the government to recover these costs from the losing party. This is a standard practice in legal proceedings where the successful party is entitled to recover the expenses incurred in pursuing the case.

h. Public Resources and Fiscal Responsibility: Courts may also be mindful of the fact that costs awarded to the government ultimately involve the use of public resources. Therefore, the court may exercise its discretion judiciously, considering principles of fiscal responsibility.

In summary, Rule 3 of Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides guidance on the award of costs in suits involving the government. The rule acknowledges the discretionary nature of cost awards, allowing the court to consider various factors, including the public interest, when determining the amount of costs to be awarded to the government. This aligns with the broader principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.

Rule 4 Order XXVII A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Application of Order to appeals"

In the application of this Order to appeals the word "defendant" shall be held to include a respondent and the word "suit" an appeal. Explanation-In this Order, "statutory instrument" means a rule, notification, bye-law, order, scheme or form made as specified under any enactment.

Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 outlines the procedure for filing suits by or against the government or public officers. Rule 4 of Order XXVII-A specifically addresses the application of this order to appeals:

a. Extension to Appeals: Rule 4 clarifies that the provisions of Order XXVII-A are not confined to original suits alone; they also extend to appeals. This means that the procedures outlined in Order XXVII-A are applicable not only in the trial court but also during the appellate stage.

b. Continuation of Procedure: When a matter reaches the appellate stage, the procedures established by Order XXVII-A continue to apply. This includes the rules related to the filing of suits by or against the government, the filing of written statements, and other procedural aspects.

c. Uniformity in Procedure: The extension of these procedures to appeals ensures a degree of uniformity in the legal process. It aligns with the recognition that cases involving the government often require special considerations, and a consistent procedural approach is beneficial.

d. Recognition of Government as a Litigant: By applying the rules to appeals, the legal system recognizes the government as a litigant not only at the trial stage but throughout the entire legal process. This acknowledges the government's ongoing involvement in the case, even when the matter is being reviewed by an appellate court.

e. Consistency in Application: The application of Order XXVII-A to appeals avoids procedural gaps and inconsistencies. It ensures that the principles guiding the involvement of the government in legal proceedings are maintained at every stage of the case.

f. Procedure for Appeals Involving the Government:

When parties appeal a decision in a case involving the government, they must adhere to the procedures specified in Order XXVII-A. This includes complying with the rules related to the filing of appeals, presenting written statements, and any other procedural requirements.

g. Consideration of Public Interest: The application of these rules to appeals emphasizes the continued consideration of public interest in cases involving the government. The appellate court, like the trial court, may take into account the broader implications of the case on public policy and interest.

h. Adaptability to Appellate Procedures: While Order XXVII-A applies to appeals, the procedural nuances of the appellate process are also taken into consideration. The rules are adapted to fit the specific requirements and practices of appellate proceedings.

In essence, Rule 4 of Order XXVII-A ensures that the procedures established for suits involving the government are seamlessly extended to the appellate stage. This extension reflects a recognition of the government's ongoing role as a litigant and the importance of maintaining procedural consistency throughout the legal journey. It also underscores the significance of considering public interest in cases that may have far-reaching implications beyond the immediate parties involved.

CASE LAWS

Few examples of cases involving substantial questions of law related to the interpretation of the Constitution of India: a. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) is a historic and seminal case in Indian constitutional law. The central issue in this case was the scope of the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and whether there were any implied limitations on this power.

The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the Kerala government's attempt to acquire certain properties belonging to a temple. However, the case took a constitutional turn when the Supreme Court decided to examine the validity of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which sought to nullify the impact of earlier judicial decisions limiting the amending power of the Parliament.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, established the "basic structure doctrine," holding that while Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure or essential features. The court, in a rare move, outlined certain principles and features that it deemed as part of the basic structure, including the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, federalism, secularism, and the separation of powers.

This case had profound implications as it set a precedent for future constitutional interpretation and limited the amending power of the Parliament. The decision marked a crucial moment in Indian legal history, ensuring the protection of the core values enshrined in the Constitution.

b. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) is a landmark case that significantly expanded the scope of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case revolved around the cancellation of Maneka Gandhi's passport by the government without providing her with an opportunity to be heard.

Maneka Gandhi, an Indian citizen, was issued a passport which was later impounded by the government on the grounds of public interest. Maneka challenged this action, asserting that it violated her fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, interpreted Article 21 in a broad and expansive manner. It held that the right to life and personal liberty is not confined to mere existence but includes the right to live with dignity. The court stated that any procedure established by law for depriving a person of their personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.

This case marked a significant departure from the earlier "procedure established by law" interpretation to a "due process of law" approach, emphasizing the need for fairness and reasonableness in state actions affecting personal liberty. The Maneka Gandhi case played a crucial role in shaping the jurisprudence on fundamental rights in India and contributed to a more robust protection of individual liberties.

c. Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980): Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980) is a landmark case that dealt with the balance of power between the Parliament and the Judiciary, particularly in the context of amending the Constitution of India.

The case arose from a constitutional challenge to the validity of certain amendments introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. These amendments sought to curtail the power of judicial review and expand the legislative authority to amend the Constitution without any limitations.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, struck down the amendments that attempted to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This case reaffirmed and strengthened the concept of the "basic structure doctrine," which had been introduced in the Kesavananda Bharati case. The court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot destroy or damage its basic structure.

The Minerva Mills case is significant as it established a check on the amending power of the Parliament, ensuring that it does not undermine the essential features and principles of the Constitution. This judgment solidified the idea that there are inherent limitations on the amending power, and it cannot be used to subvert the foundational values of the Constitution.

d. S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994): Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980) is a landmark case that dealt with the balance of power between the Parliament and the Judiciary, particularly in the context of amending the Constitution of India.

The case arose from a constitutional challenge to the validity of certain amendments introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. These amendments sought to curtail

the power of judicial review and expand the legislative authority to amend the Constitution without any limitations.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, struck down the amendments that attempted to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This case reaffirmed and strengthened the concept of the "basic structure doctrine," which had been introduced in the Kesavananda Bharati case. The court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot destroy or damage its basic structure.

The Minerva Mills case is significant as it established a check on the amending power of the Parliament, ensuring that it does not undermine the essential features and principles of the Constitution. This judgment solidified the idea that there are inherent limitations on the amending power, and it cannot be used to subvert the foundational values of the Constitution.

e. Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan (1997):* This case dealt with the lack of specific laws to address sexual harassment at the workplace and led to the formulation of guidelines to protect women in the workplace.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, suits involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution or the validity of any statutory instrument are not mere legal contests; they are pivotal moments in the intersection of law, governance, and public interest. These cases delve into the core principles that shape a nation, requiring a nuanced understanding of constitutional provisions and legal intricacies.

The significance of such suits lies in their potential to set legal precedents, impacting not only the immediate parties involved but the entire legal landscape. The court becomes a stage where constitutional principles are examined, statutory instruments are scrutinized, and the delicate balance between individual rights and governmental authority is weighed.

The procedural aspects, guided by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, play a crucial role in ensuring a fair and just resolution. The notice to the Attorney-General or Advocate-General serves as a formal initiation, inviting the government to participate in the legal discourse. It recognizes the government's unique position and the need for its representation when matters of constitutional interpretation or statutory validity are at the forefront.

Adding the government as a party, as empowered by the legal framework, ensures a comprehensive examination of issues. The court, armed with discretionary powers, carefully considers the implications for public interest, striving for a balance that respects the rule of law and the rights of individuals while recognizing the authority and responsibilities of the government.

The rules governing costs, as outlined in Order XXVII-A, reflect the practical aftermath of such legal battles. Whether the government emerges victorious or concedes, the issue of costs becomes a pivotal aspect of the judicial outcome. This not only adds a layer of financial responsibility but also underscores the accountability of the government in the legal realm.

As these suits extend into the appellate stage, the legal journey maintains its rigor. The application of established procedures ensures a degree of consistency and fairness, acknowledging that questions of constitutional interpretation and statutory validity demand a thorough and uniform approach at every stage of the legal process.

In essence, suits involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the constitution or the validity of statutory instruments are more than legal disputes; they are exercises in safeguarding the essence of democracy, protecting individual liberties, and ensuring that the actions of the government align with the foundational principles set forth in the constitution. They are a testament to the dynamic and participatory nature of the legal system, where even the most intricate matters find resolution through a delicate dance of law, precedent, and the pursuit of justice.

REFERENCES:

1. Mulla’s book on the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Sarkar book on the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Lawzonline.com 4. Aaptaxlaw.com 5. Advocatekhoj.com 6. Lawwire.com

******