It was 24th April,2014. I was in court No.12 in Supreme Court. Justice Sikri and Justice Nariman were hearing two cases.
In the first case, vires of certain statue was challenged in High Court.
The High Court did not allow this challenge on assumption that Vires were already decided by Supreme Court in some other case.. which assumption was in fact not correct.
Supreme Court allowed this appeal and remanded the matter to High Court.
Then counsel in next case arose and said that his case is similar. He said he too had challenged Vires of law.
Justice Nariman Instantly corrected him and said, "No. You had challenged law as Ultra Vires."
The counsel conceded.
The Judge said, "There is wide difference between to "Challenge Vires of a law" and to "Challenge a law as Ultra Vires"..
The counsel again conceded.
His matter was also then remanded.
The point however is, when you are arguing in Supreme Court, you have to exact meaning of each word you speak.
When you challenge Vires of law, you are saying that law making body had no powers to pass this law. When you say that it is Ulta Vires, you are saying that it though it had power to pass law, the law passed is Above or in Excess of powers of law making body.
Haresh Raichura
26/4/2015
Copyright : Haresh Raichura 2014. All Rights reserved.
Haresh Raichura
26/4/2015
Copyright : Haresh Raichura 2014. All Rights reserved.
