Whether State High Courts possess inherent authority under Article 226 to suspend the operation of a State legislation when its constitutional validity is under challenge, overriding legislative immunity claims.
Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'State High Courts ko yeh shakti honi chahiye ki woh kisi State law ko, jab uski constitutional validity challenge ki ja rahi ho, tab pending challenge suspend kar sakein.' Yeh ek bahut important sawaal hai — ek taraf rule of law aur naagrik ke maulik adhikaar hain, doosri taraf elected legislature ki zimmedari aur democratic will. Main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karungi ki woh apna pehla argument pesh karein.
My lord, main yeh maanta hoon ki jab ek State ka kanoon nagrik ke maulik adhikaron ko seedha chunauti deta hai, tab High Court ke paas usse rok sakne ki shakti honi chahiye — kyunki bina is power ke, unconstitutional kanoon tab tak damage karta rahega jab tak final faisla aata hai. Suspension ka power High Court ko ek effective guardian banata hai, warna constitutional remedy sirf kaagaz par reh jaati hai. Yeh motion is fundamental gap ko bharne ki baat karta hai — aur main is paksh mein poori tarah khada hoon.
My Lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — High Courts ko State laws suspend karne ki sweeping power dena ek dangerous overstep hoga. Article 226 ek writ jurisdiction hai, lekin iska yeh matlab nahi ki ek elected Legislature ki vidhi ko routine challengers ke kehne par rok diya jaaye — yeh lok-niyantrit vidhan ki supremacy ko undermine karta hai. Paksh ne jo argument diya, wo constitutional balance ko tod'ta hai: State Legislature apni sima mein, Article 245 aur 246 ke tehat, valid kanoon banati hai — uski suspension ek judicial discretion ka issue nahi, ek constitutional breach ka sawaal hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226; Constitution of India · Article 246; Constitution of India · Article 245
My Lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki State laws ko suspend karna legislative authority ko undermine karta hai — lekin yeh argument Article 226 ki vast jurisdiction ko ignore karta hai, jo High Courts ko 'any other purpose' ke liye writ dene ka adhikar deta hai, sirf fundamental rights tak seemit nahi. Agar ek unconstitutional State law lagu rehti hai jab tak Supreme Court final faisla nahi karta, to Article 39A ke under equal justice ka vaada khokha ho jaata hai — aur jo nagrik economic disability se peeda hai, woh insaaf ke liye kitne saal intezaar kare? Isliye, High Court ki suspension power sirf judicial review ka ek zaroori extension hai — legislative supremacy par attack nahi.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226; Constitution of India · Article 39A
My Lord, paksh ne Article 226 ki 'any other purpose' wali baat uthaayi — lekin woh yeh bhool gayi ki yeh power writs ke liye hai, kisi bhi State law ko suspend karne ka blanket authority nahi deta; suspension aur writ do alag cheezein hain. Article 246 ke tahat State Legislature ko apni List par poora adhikaar hai — ek unelected court ka interim suspension us democratic mandate ko seedha undermine karti hai, bina final faisle ke hi. Isliye main maanti hoon ki yeh proposed power constitutionally overreach hai, aur iska expansion nahi hona chahiye.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226; Constitution of India · Article 246
Ek taraf ka kehna tha ki Article 226 ke under High Courts ko yeh supervisory shakti milni chahiye taaki nagrik ke fundamental rights protect hon pending constitutional challenge — doosri taraf ka tark tha ki aise blanket suspension power se legislative supremacy aur federal balance bigad sakta hai. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki High Courts Article 226 ki existing wider jurisdiction ka upyog karte hue, case-by-case basis par interim stay grant kar sakti hain — lekin ek structured, time-bound aur reasoned order framework hona chahiye jisse na legislative intent bewaajah rok jaaye, na naagrik nuksaan mein rahe. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay zaroor dein.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226