Core Question
Whether confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, automatically abate upon the death of the main accused public servant, especially when properties are held by relatives who were also respondents in the proceedings.
Reasoning
Examined the legislative intent behind anti-corruption confiscation provisions.
Analyzed whether proceedings are in personam or in rem — concluding they operate against both the person and the property.
Ruled that confiscation proceedings do not abate upon the death of the accused if relatives holding properties continue as respondents.
Core Question
Whether the special provisions under Articles 371A-G of the Constitution adequately protect the customary rights of indigenous communities while maintaining constitutional supremacy.
Reasoning
Balanced the tension between special constitutional protections and the uniformity of fundamental rights.
Upheld the unique identity and autonomy safeguards while ensuring they align with the broader constitutional framework.
Core Question
Questions of administrative due process, fairness, and accountability in government actions affecting public servants and state operations during the post-Article 370 reorganization period.
Reasoning
Established the standard of review for administrative decisions made during the transition period.
Reinforced principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and the right to be heard in administrative processes.
Core Question
Resolution of complex land disputes involving the interplay between customary law traditions of the region and statutory provisions of Indian civil law.
Reasoning
Recognized the legitimate role of customary law in land matters while establishing limits of its application.
Created a framework for harmonizing customary practices with modern statutory requirements, ensuring equity for all parties.
Core Question
The scope and limits of judicial review over legislative actions — examining the boundary between judicial scrutiny and legislative sovereignty.
Reasoning
Reaffirmed the Constitutional mandate of the judiciary to review legislation for conformity with fundamental rights.
Drew careful boundaries respecting legislative intent while ensuring constitutional safeguards remain paramount.