J.S. YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

J.S. YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 does not apply retrospectively to appointments made prior to its commencement. The impugned Notification declaring appellant ceased to hold the post is illegal, as it violates Section 26 of the 1993 Act and principles of natural justice; accrued rights for tenure cannot be taken away without express legislative intent.

Parties
Appellant: J.S. Yadav; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Principal Home Secretary, State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Protection of Human Rights Act, Retrospective Effect of Amendments, Tenure Appointment, Accrued Rights, Natural Justice, Impleadment of Necessary Party, Service Jurisprudence
Constitutional Law Service Law Human Rights Protection of Human Rights Act Retrospective Effect of Amendments Tenure Appointment Accrued Rights Natural Justice +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.S. Yadav

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Principal Home Secretary, State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 applies retrospectively to disqualify the appellant from holding office as Member of the State Human Rights Commission.
  2. 2 Whether accrued/vested rights can be taken away by amendment or repeal without express or implied intention.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to continue for the full tenure despite change in eligibility criteria after appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 does not apply retrospectively to appointments made prior to its commencement. The impugned Notification declaring appellant ceased to hold the post is illegal, as it violates Section 26 of the 1993 Act and principles of natural justice; accrued rights for tenure cannot be taken away without express legislative intent.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that Notification dated 28.5.2008 is illegal.
  • No reinstatement or other relief granted except declaration, as vacancies already filled and necessary party not impleaded.