Comprehension
If a tax is ultra vires or unconstitutional then the party is entitled to have a refund of it from the government whether it has been paid under protest or not. This Court has held that the payment of tax which is without authority of law is payment made under a mistake within the meaning of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. Then, in such a case, question would arise, whether the government to whom the payment had been made by mistake must repay it.
Thus, the principle of restitution or repayment of the tax simpliciter has been considered in light of the doctrine of unlawful enrichment. The doctrine envisages that when the State collects a tax from the tax-payer without authority of law, but if the taxpayer has already passed on the burden of the tax money paid by him to the State to someone else and has recouped the money then the taxpayer is not entitled to ask for the restitution from the State the money paid by him as unauthorized tax. In such circumstances, the State cannot be asked to refund the tax money to the taxpayer on the principle of unlawful enrichment.
Thus, the principle of restitution or repayment of the tax simpliciter has been considered in light of the doctrine of unlawful enrichment. The doctrine envisages that when the State collects a tax from the tax-payer without authority of law, but if the taxpayer has already passed on the burden of the tax money paid by him to the State to someone else and has recouped the money then the taxpayer is not entitled to ask for the restitution from the State the money paid by him as unauthorized tax. In such circumstances, the State cannot be asked to refund the tax money to the taxpayer on the principle of unlawful enrichment.
Question: 1
Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment implies:
Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment implies:
Show Hint
Unjust enrichment involves both wrongful gain and the duty to restore it.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Obtaining benefit from another (which is not a gift) without legal justification
- Restoration of the benefits obtained without legal justification
- Neither (A) nor (B)
- Both (A) and (B)
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
Step 1: Meaning of Unjust Enrichment.
Unjust enrichment is a legal principle where a person benefits at another's expense without a legal reason, and the law imposes an obligation to return the benefit.
Step 2: Elements.
- (A) refers to the wrongful receipt of benefit.
- (B) refers to the restoration (restitution) of that benefit to the rightful party.
Since both are inherent to the doctrine, (D) is correct. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Unjust enrichment is a legal principle where a person benefits at another's expense without a legal reason, and the law imposes an obligation to return the benefit.
Step 2: Elements.
- (A) refers to the wrongful receipt of benefit.
- (B) refers to the restoration (restitution) of that benefit to the rightful party.
Since both are inherent to the doctrine, (D) is correct. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question asks what the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment actually implies, and the two component statements need to be checked separately before deciding whether one, both, or neither applies.
- Obtaining benefit from another (which is not a gift) without legal justification: this describes the wrongful acquisition side of the doctrine, where one party gains something at another's expense with no legal basis to keep it, such as money paid by mistake or a tax collected without authority.
- Restoration of the benefits obtained without legal justification: this describes the remedial side of the same doctrine, the obligation to give back what was wrongfully obtained so that the enriched party does not retain a benefit it was never entitled to.
- Neither (A) nor (B): this can be ruled out because both statements describe genuine, recognised elements of the doctrine rather than mischaracterisations of it.
- Both (A) and (B): since the doctrine necessarily involves both the wrongful receipt of a benefit and the corresponding duty to restore it, this option captures the complete picture.
The doctrine is not just about identifying an unjustified gain, it also imposes the restitutionary consequence that follows from it, so both statements together define it.
Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment is applicable to:
Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment is applicable to:
Show Hint
Unjust enrichment spans both private contractual disputes and public tax matters.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Contractual Matters
- Tax Matters
- Both (A) and (B)
- None of these
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
Step 1: Scope of the doctrine.
Unjust enrichment is a broad principle applicable in private law (e.g., contracts) and public law (e.g., taxes collected without authority).
Step 2: Judicial application.
Courts have applied it to tax refunds when the collection lacked legal authority and to contractual restitution claims. \[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Unjust enrichment is a broad principle applicable in private law (e.g., contracts) and public law (e.g., taxes collected without authority).
Step 2: Judicial application.
Courts have applied it to tax refunds when the collection lacked legal authority and to contractual restitution claims. \[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks whether unjust enrichment applies only in contractual matters, only in tax matters, in both, or in neither, so the scope of the doctrine in each field needs to be examined.
- Contractual Matters: unjust enrichment is a recognised basis for restitution in private law, for example where money is paid under a void or mistaken contract and must be returned; this shows the doctrine clearly operates in the contractual sphere.
- Tax Matters: courts have also applied the same underlying principle to tax refunds, holding that a taxpayer who has borne the burden of a tax collected without legal authority is entitled to restitution, and conversely denying refunds where the burden has already been passed on to a third party; this shows the doctrine operates in the public law/tax sphere too.
- Both (A) and (B): since the doctrine has been applied in both the private contractual context and the public tax context, this option correctly reflects its actual scope.
- None of these: this can be ruled out because the doctrine's application in both areas is well established in judicial practice.
The doctrine is not confined to a single branch of law; it is a general equitable principle that courts extend wherever one party would otherwise retain a benefit without legal justification, whether that arises from a contract or from a tax collection.
Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
A business entity can claim refund of tax on the ground of unjust enrichment in which of the following cases?
A business entity can claim refund of tax on the ground of unjust enrichment in which of the following cases?
Show Hint
In unjust enrichment claims for tax refunds, key factor = burden of tax must not be passed to consumers.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- When the tax has been levied without the authority of law and the burden of tax is borne by the business entity.
- When the tax has been levied without the authority of law and the burden of tax has been passed on to the consumer.
- When levy of tax is under the authority of law and the business entity has not passed the burden to the consumer.
- Both (A) and (C)
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
Step 1: Principle in tax context.
Refund on unjust enrichment requires proving that:
1. The tax was not authorised by law OR was otherwise refundable; and 2. The burden was not passed on to the consumer.
Step 2: Application to options.
- (A) applies where the tax was without authority and borne by the business.
- (C) applies where tax was lawful but refundable and burden was not passed to consumer.
- (B) fails because passing burden to consumers negates unjust enrichment claim.
\[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Refund on unjust enrichment requires proving that:
1. The tax was not authorised by law OR was otherwise refundable; and 2. The burden was not passed on to the consumer.
Step 2: Application to options.
- (A) applies where the tax was without authority and borne by the business.
- (C) applies where tax was lawful but refundable and burden was not passed to consumer.
- (B) fails because passing burden to consumers negates unjust enrichment claim.
\[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question requires matching each scenario to the settled two-part test for a tax refund on the ground of unjust enrichment: the tax must be shown to be refundable, and the burden must not have been passed on to someone else.
- Tax levied without authority of law, burden borne by the business entity: here the tax itself is invalid and the entity has personally absorbed the cost rather than passing it on, so both limbs of the test are satisfied and a refund is properly claimable.
- Tax levied without authority of law, burden passed on to the consumer: although the tax is invalid, the entity has already recovered the cost from the consumer; refunding it again to the entity would let it keep money it never actually bore, which is exactly the double benefit the doctrine exists to prevent.
- Tax levied under authority of law, burden not passed to the consumer: even though the tax was validly levied, if the entity qualifies for a refund on some other lawful ground (such as an exemption or overpayment) and has not shifted the burden onward, there is no unjust enrichment concern in repaying it, since the entity genuinely bore the cost.
- Both (A) and (C): both these scenarios share the key feature that the business entity itself bore the economic burden without passing it on, which is precisely when a refund does not create a windfall.
What unites the two valid scenarios is not whether the tax was authorised, but whether the claimant actually bore the cost; scenario (B) fails only because the burden was shifted to the consumer.
Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (C).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
When can tax be declared as unconstitutional?
When can tax be declared as unconstitutional?
Show Hint
Art. 265 + Legislative competence = twin pillars for tax validity; breach either → unconstitutional.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- If tax has been levied without the authority of law.
- If the legislature does not have legislative competence to levy that tax.
- Both (A) and (B)
- When the assessment of tax by assessing officer is contrary to facts and evidence on record.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
Step 1: Constitutional provisions.
Article 265 of the Constitution states: “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” A tax levied without such authority is unconstitutional.
Step 2: Legislative competence.
If a legislature enacts a tax outside its jurisdiction under the Seventh Schedule, it is void for lack of competence.
Step 3: Application.
Both scenarios — absence of legal authority or lack of legislative competence — render the tax unconstitutional. \[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Article 265 of the Constitution states: “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” A tax levied without such authority is unconstitutional.
Step 2: Legislative competence.
If a legislature enacts a tax outside its jurisdiction under the Seventh Schedule, it is void for lack of competence.
Step 3: Application.
Both scenarios — absence of legal authority or lack of legislative competence — render the tax unconstitutional. \[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question asks under what circumstances a tax can be struck down as unconstitutional, which requires checking each proposed ground against the constitutional scheme for taxation in India.
- If tax has been levied without the authority of law: Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law, so a tax imposed without any legal backing at all is unconstitutional on this ground alone.
- If the legislature does not have legislative competence to levy that tax: taxation powers are distributed between Parliament and the State Legislatures through the lists in the Seventh Schedule, and a tax enacted by a legislature outside its assigned field is void for want of competence, which is a distinct but equally valid constitutional infirmity.
- Both (A) and (B): since absence of legal authority and absence of legislative competence are each independently sufficient to render a tax unconstitutional, and both are recognised grounds, this option correctly combines them.
- When the assessment of tax by the assessing officer is contrary to facts and evidence on record: this describes an error in the factual application of an otherwise valid and competently enacted tax law, which is a ground for challenging the assessment order in appeal or revision, not a ground for declaring the tax itself unconstitutional.
The fourth option confuses an administrative or factual error in assessment with a constitutional defect in the taxing power itself, which is a different kind of challenge altogether.
Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
In which of the following cases, challenge to constitutionality of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 on the ground of lack of legislative competence was rejected?
In which of the following cases, challenge to constitutionality of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 on the ground of lack of legislative competence was rejected?
Show Hint
When analysing constitutionality challenges, always check both subject matter competence and procedural validity.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 2 SCC 599.
- Sudhir Kumar Atrey v. Union of India (2022) 1 SCC 352.
- Hindustan Construction Co. Limited v. Union of India (2020) 17 SCC 324.
- Union of India v. A. Shainamol 2021 SCC OnLine SC 262.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
Step 1: Case background.
In Sudhir Kumar Atrey, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, rejecting the contention of lack of legislative competence.
Step 2: Court’s reasoning.
The Court found that the Act fell within the legislative powers under the Constitution and was validly enacted to compensate States for revenue loss post-GST.
Step 3: Elimination.
Other listed cases dealt with different statutory provisions or grounds unrelated to this specific challenge. \[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]
In Sudhir Kumar Atrey, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, rejecting the contention of lack of legislative competence.
Step 2: Court’s reasoning.
The Court found that the Act fell within the legislative powers under the Constitution and was validly enacted to compensate States for revenue loss post-GST.
Step 3: Elimination.
Other listed cases dealt with different statutory provisions or grounds unrelated to this specific challenge. \[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks in which case a challenge to the constitutionality of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, on the ground of lack of legislative competence, was rejected, so each cited case needs to be checked against its actual subject matter.
- Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 2 SCC 599: this case dealt with the levy of Compensation Cess on coal and its interplay with the Clean Energy Cess, addressing double taxation concerns rather than a direct legislative competence challenge to the parent Act.
- Sudhir Kumar Atrey v. Union of India (2022) 1 SCC 352: in this case the constitutionality of the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, was directly challenged on the ground that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact it, and the Supreme Court rejected that challenge, upholding the Act as validly enacted.
- Hindustan Construction Co. Limited v. Union of India (2020) 17 SCC 324: this case primarily concerned the constitutionality of provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as applied to certain classes of creditors, an entirely different subject matter unrelated to GST compensation legislation.
- Union of India v. A. Shainamol, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 262: this matter does not concern the legislative competence to enact the GST Compensation Act and involves a different set of facts and parties altogether.
Only the Sudhir Kumar Atrey litigation squarely presents and disposes of a legislative competence challenge to the 2017 Compensation Act, which the Court rejected.
Therefore, the correct answer is Sudhir Kumar Atrey v. Union of India (2022) 1 SCC 352.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Additional tax, in the form of tax on tax, for a specified purpose is called:
Additional tax, in the form of tax on tax, for a specified purpose is called:
Show Hint
Cess = additional levy for a specific purpose; collected like a tax but earmarked for designated use.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Cess
- Fee
- Tax
- None of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
Step 1: Definition of cess.
A cess is a form of tax levied over and above the base tax rate, earmarked for a specific purpose (e.g., education cess, health cess).
Step 2: Distinction from fee and tax.
Unlike a general tax, cess revenue is earmarked; unlike a fee, it is not linked to direct services rendered. \[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
A cess is a form of tax levied over and above the base tax rate, earmarked for a specific purpose (e.g., education cess, health cess).
Step 2: Distinction from fee and tax.
Unlike a general tax, cess revenue is earmarked; unlike a fee, it is not linked to direct services rendered. \[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question asks what an additional tax-on-tax levied for a specified purpose is called, and the terms offered need to be distinguished by their defining features.
- Cess: a cess is an additional levy imposed over and above an existing base tax, and its revenue is earmarked exclusively for a particular purpose, such as education or health, which matches the description in the question precisely.
- Fee: a fee is charged in exchange for a specific service rendered by the State to the payer, such as a licence or registration fee, and is not structured as an add-on percentage over an existing tax.
- Tax: a tax is a general, compulsory levy whose proceeds go into the consolidated fund for public purposes generally, without being earmarked for one specific object, which is the opposite of the purpose-specific character described here.
- None of the above: this can be ruled out because cess is precisely the recognised term that matches every element of the description.
The defining features in the question, an additional levy calculated on top of an existing tax and dedicated to one named purpose, correspond exactly to how a cess operates and to nothing else on the list.
Therefore, the correct answer is Cess.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT PG Questions
- Our society is governed by the Constitution. The values of constitutional morality are a non-derogable entitlement. Notions of “purity and pollution”, which stigmatise individuals, can have no place in a constitutional regime. Regarding menstruation as polluting or impure, and worse still, imposing exclusionary disabilities on the basis of menstrual status, is against the dignity of women which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Practices which legitimise menstrual taboos, due to notions of “purity and pollution”, limit the ability of menstruating women to attain the freedom of movement, the right to education and the right of entry to places of worship and, eventually, their access to the public sphere. Women have a right to control their own bodies. The menstrual status of a woman is an attribute of her privacy and person. Women have a constitutional entitlement that their biological processes must be free from social and religious practices, which enforce segregation and exclusion. These practices result in humiliation and a violation of dignity. Article 17 prohibits the practice of “untouchability”, which is based on notions of purity and impurity, “in any form”. Article 17 certainly applies to untouchability practices in relation to lower castes, but it will also apply to the systemic humiliation, exclusion and subjugation faced by women. Prejudice against women based on notions of impurity and pollution associated with menstruation is a symbol of exclusion. The social exclusion of women, based on menstrual status, is but a form of untouchability which is an anathema to constitutional values. As an expression of the anti-exclusion principle, Article 17 cannot be read to exclude women against whom social exclusion of the worst kind has been practised and legitimised on notions of purity and pollution. Article 17 cannot be read in a restricted manner. But even if Article 17 were to be read to reflect a particular form of untouchability, that Article will not exhaust the guarantee against other forms of social exclusion. The guarantee against social exclusion would emanate from other provisions of Part III, including Articles 15(2) and 21. Exclusion of women between the age group of ten and fifty, based on their menstrual status, from entering the temple in Sabarimala can have no place in a constitutional order founded on liberty and dignity.
[Extracted from Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (hereafter IYLA)] - An Ordinance which is promulgated by the Governor has (as clause 2 of Article 213 provides) the same force and effect as an Act of the legislature of the State assented to by the Governor. However - and this is a matter of crucial importance – clause 2 goes on to stipulate in the same vein significant constitutional conditions. These conditions have to be fulfilled before the ‘force and effect’ fiction comes into being. These conditions are prefaced by the expression “but every such Ordinance” which means that the constitutional fiction is subject to what is stipulated in sub-clauses (a) and (b). Sub-clause (a) provides that the Ordinance “shall be laid before the legislative assembly of the state” or before both the Houses in the case of a bi-cameral legislature. Is the requirement of laying an Ordinance before the state legislature mandatory? There can be no manner of doubt that it is. The expression “shall be laid” is a positive mandate which brooks no exceptions. That the word ‘shall’ in sub-clause (a) of clause 2 of Article 213 is mandatory, emerges from reading the provision in its entirety. As we have noted earlier, an Ordinance can be promulgated only when the legislature is not in session. Upon the completion of six weeks of the reassembling of the legislature, an Ordinance “shall cease to operate”.
Article 213(2)(a) postulates that an ordinance would cease to operate upon the expiry of a period of six weeks of the reassembly of the legislature. The Oxford English dictionary defines the expression “cease” as : “to stop, give over, discontinue, desist; to come to the end.” P Ramanatha Aiyar’s, The Major Law Lexicon defines the expression “cease” to mean “discontinue or put an end to”. Justice C K Thakker’s Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon defines the word “cease” as meaning: “to put an end to; to stop, to terminate or to discontinue”. The expression has been defined in similar terms in Black’s Law Dictionary.
The expression “cease to operate” in Article 213(2)(a) is attracted in two situations. The first is where a period of six weeks has expired since the reassembling of the legislature. The second situation is where a resolution has been passed by the legislature disapproving of an ordinance. Apart from these two situations that are contemplated by sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) contemplates that an ordinance may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor. Upon its withdrawal the ordinance would cease to operate as well.
[Extracts from the judgment of majority judgment in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 1994, decided on January 2, 2017 hereafter ‘KK Singh’] - The other material which prompted the High Court to reach the conclusion that the subsoil/minerals vest in the State is … recitals of a patta which ….. states that if minerals are found in the property covered by the patta and if the pattadar exploits those minerals, the pattadar is liable for a separate tax in addition to the tax shown in the patta and …. certain standing orders of the Collector of Malabar which provided for collection of seigniorage fee in the event of the mining operation being carried on. We are of the clear opinion that the recitals in the patta or the Collector’s standing order that the exploitation of mineral wealth in the patta land would attract additional tax, in our opinion, cannot in any way indicate the ownership of the State in the minerals. The power to tax is a necessary incident of sovereign authority (imperium) but not an incident of proprietary rights (dominium). Proprietary right is a compendium of rights consisting of various constituent, rights. If a person has only a share in the produce of some property, it can never be said that such property vests in such a person. In the instant case, the State asserted its ‘right’ to demand a share in the ‘produce of the minerals worked’ though the expression employed is right – it is in fact the Sovereign authority which is asserted. From the language of the BSO No.10 it is clear that such right to demand the share could be exercised only when the pattadar or somebody claiming through the pattadar, extracts/works the minerals – the authority of the State to collect money on the happening of an event – such a demand is more in the nature of an excise duty/a tax. The assertion of authority to collect a duty or tax is in the realm of the sovereign authority, but not a proprietary right….
The only other submission which we are required to deal with before we part with this matter is the argument of the learned counsel for the State that in view of the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter ‘MMDRA’) which prohibits under Section 4 the carrying on of any mining activity in this country except in accordance with the permit, licence or mining lease as the case may be, granted under the Act, the appellants cannot claim any proprietary right in the sub-soil…
[Extract from the judgment in Thressiamma Jacob v. Dept. of Mining & Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725] (hereafter ‘T Jacob’) - A nationwide lockdown was declared by the Central Government from 24 March 2020 to prevent the spread of the CoVID-19 pandemic. Economic activity came to a grinding halt. The lockdown was extended on several occasions, among them for the second time on 14 April 2020. On 17 April 2020, the Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 5 of the Factories Act to exempt all factories registered under the Act “from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. for adult workers” under Sections 51, 54, 55 and 56. The stated aim of the notification was to provide “certain relaxations for industrial and commercial activities” from 20 April 2020 till 19 July 2020.
Section 5 of the Factories Act provides that in a public emergency, the State Government can exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of the Act, except Section 67. Section 5 is extracted below: “5. Power to exempt during public emergency. — In any case of public emergency the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of this Act except section 67 for such period and subject to such conditions as it may think fit: Provided that no such notification shall be made for a period exceeding three months at a time. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section ‘public emergency’ means a grave emergency whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance.” (emphasis supplied) The notification in its relevant part is extracted below:
“... NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948, the ‘Factories Act’ PART B Government of Gujarat hereby directs that all the factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948 shall be exempted from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. of adult workers under section 51, section 54, and section 55 and section 56 with the following conditions from 20th April till 19th July 2020, –
(1) No adult worker shall be allowed or required to work in a factory for more than twelve hours in any day and Seventy Two hours in any week.
(2) The Periods of work of adult workers in a factory each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed six hours and that no worker shall work for more than six hours before he has had an interval of rest of at least half an hour.
(3) No Female workers shall be allowed or required to work in a factory between 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
(4) Wages shall be in a proportion of the existing wages (e.g. If wages for eight hours are 80 Rupees, then proportionate wages for twelve hours will be 120 Rupees).”
[Extract from judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. The State of Gujarat decided on 1 October, 2020, (hereafter ‘GMS’)] - In view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of a FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register a FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of a FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
[Excerpted from the judgment delivered by Sathasivam, C.J.I. in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (hereafter ‘Lalita Kumari’)]
View More Questions