Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The petitioner, Kapil Kumar approached the Supreme Court contending that Section 69 and 132 of the Goods and Services Act are ultra vires to Article 21 of the Indian constitution and section 70(1) is against the principle of Right to Self-incrimination provided under Article 20(3) of the Indian constitution and section 69 of the Act is violative of principles of natural justice. The contention of the petitioner is that sec.137 of the Act imposes vicarious liability in criminal offenses committed by a person which is against the settled principles of Natural justice. Also, Sec.135 of the Act is unconstitutional as the burden of proof is on the accused to prove his innocence which is unknown to criminal jurisprudence.
When the matter came before the divisional bench in Supreme court, consisting of justice Indra Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna, the court carefully examined the nature of article 32 of the Indian constitution and held that the said article exists to safeguard the fundamental right of a citizen and where there is an effective remedy under article 226 of the constitution it is necessary to exhaust the alternative remedy available under the law before approaching the Apex court. The constitutionality of any Act or a provision can be challenged in the High Court as the same is competent enough to deal with such matters, the SC held. When there are well-established remedies and procedures under the criminal procedure and Revenue laws it is purely the discretion of the court to entertain such pleas under article 32, the SC said. The step taken by the Supreme Court is to minimize the number of petitions flowing to the SC in spite of adequate and efficacious laws and remedies. The same is very apparent and glaring from the judgment delivered by the bench.
Hence, the court rejected the plea was rejected by SC by directing the petitioner to the High Court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824