top of page
  • Writer's pictureBrain Booster Articles


Author: Prashansa Agarwal, III year of B.A.,LL.B.(Hons.) from Bennett University


In 1948, Carol Harlow and Richard Rawling were the ones who initially proposed the idea of the red light, green light theory, which is now considered to be one of the ideas of rule of law. The concept of "rule of law" refers to a fundamentally straightforward aspect of administrative law. This theory was presented to evaluate administrative law to put an end to the misuse of authority. The red-light theory focuses primarily on the control of powers that are vested with the government and prioritizes judicial control as the most important form of control in a democratic society. According to the green light idea, the state takes on a more expansive role, receives more power, and is granted permission to intervene when necessary. This view places a greater focus on politics than on the judicial system. The majority of countries' judicial systems can be described as a hybrid of these two schools of thought. The amber light theory describes a sort of governance that falls somewhere in the middle of these two competing ideas, and it is characterized as such. For governance to be deemed morally sound, it must conform to one of these theories. In this paper, we will be assessing many aspects of these theories, including their strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and disadvantages.

KEYWORDS:Law, state, governance, powers, rights, and liabilities, power dynamics, rule of law, abuse of power, separation of power


Administrative laws are laws that govern the acts of administration, and the red light green light theory is one of the ideas of laws that makes administration more efficient. Administrative laws are also known as administrative statutes. Administrative law is a combination of the rights and responsibilities of individuals in terms of officials, and it specifies the mechanism by which the vested rights are being implemented. The case ofMarbury v. Madison, 1803, is the first case,whichdepicted that there should the judicial supremacy, and it should be noted that it was later recognized in a lot of other countries up to this day. In this article, we shall investigate these schools of thought in further detail and assess the ideals that each hold.

When it comes to determining the role of judicial control over public administration to prevent power abuse and limit administrative discretion, there are some schools of thought that question whether executive actions should be brought under strict judicial control, whether executive actions should be independent of judicial control, or whether a middle ground should be found between the two extremes. One of these schools of thought is that executive actions should be brought under strict judicial control. As a result, the purpose of this essay is to investigate the three theories of administrative law—the red, green, and amber light theories—that contribute to a better understanding of all these different discourses.

The Marbury v. Madison resulted in a multitude of significant questionsbeing posed all over the world, including the following:

  • What exactly is the function of the legal system? What exactly does it mean for the judiciary to do its job?

  • Should administration fall under the purview of the judicial system?

  • Who should have the authority to make the final decisions: the executive branch or the judicial branch?

  • When it comes to the resolution of administrative (public) issues, would it be reasonable to take a page from the model of private legal adjudication?

  • Should we place more value on the rights of individuals than on the interests of the public?

At the beginning of the 1990s, there was a significant amount of controversy all over the world regarding the notions of "New Public Management" in England and "Reinventing Government" in the United States for governance reform. The traditional school of public administration favored the rule of law and the significance of legal rules and directives for the operation of administration, whereas the new school of public administration supported the idea of governance reform, which aimed to make administration more result-oriented through deviation from rigid legal rules and directives.

In this manner, these political arguments helped to contribute to the creation of a variety of new views and ideologies within the framework of administrative law. One of these thoughts brought up a big question regarding whether the executive acts ought to be brought under rigorous judicial oversight, whether the executive actions ought to be independent of judicial control, or whether a middle ground ought to be established between the two. After that, an answer to this topic was found through the development of many traffic light theories. In the beginning, there was merely the idea of the red-light theory and the green light theory. However, in 2004, two researchers by the names of Wade and Forsyth shone light upon the amber aspect that was shared by the two different ideas. Because of this, these theories came into being.


It is accepted that the laissez-faire political heritage of the 19th century inspired the red-light theory. This tradition held a deep-seated mistrust towards executive power and sought to minimize the encroachment of the state on the rights (especially property rights) of individuals.The idea of "legal sovereignty" as explained by Dicey is a good representation of the red-light theory as he maintains that the government must function in accordance with the legal rules laid down by the Parliament. This tradition held a deep-seated mistrust towards executive power. Therefore, in situations in which the government does not behave in accordance with these predetermined standards, the courts have the authority to exercise control over it and make certain that it behaves lawfully. The ‘self-correcting democracy' premise, in which the rule of law continues to be a central concept, and the ‘red light theory' have a tight relationship with one another. People tend to think of the law as an independent and consistent discipline that carries out an essential regulatory role ("checks and balances").

One of the most important premises of this theory is that court involvement can serve as a form of sanction in situations in which public entities or executive authorities go beyond the scope of their authority. This is because, if left unchecked, the administrative and executive power of the state and its institutions will pose a threat to the freedom of every single person. Therefore, judicial control is necessary within the context of a state's political system. The red-light theorists also believe that the judiciary possesses its criteria of independence and justice and that it can be depended upon, in reviewing the legality of executive action. As a result, it is possible to implement it in a state's system as an efficient mechanism for checks and balances.

Therefore, the red-light theory emphasizes law as an instrument for the management of power and the defence of individual liberty. It calls for an interventionist perspective by the courts with regard to the scrutiny of decisions made by administrative agencies. This idea, as elucidated by Dicey, looks to the concept of the 'balanced constitution' as a means of accommodating the judicial control of executive power. This theory views the executive as being subject to political control by the Parliament via the passage of stringent norms and to legal control through the judicial monitoring of the courts.


The inaction of both the executive branch and the legislative bodies. This is a consequence of the entire system having been afflicted by ineffectiveness and inactivity for a long time. Judicial activism is another consequence that has arisen as a result of violations of fundamental human rights. Judicial activism is becoming increasingly important as a result of the improper application and misuse of various parts of the Constitution.

It is vital to have an understanding of the factors that led to the judiciary taking an active role to have a proper comprehension of the expanded role of the judiciary. Other parts of the government were also riddled with widespread corruption. The executive's approach to their work became harsh, and as a result, they were unable to provide the desired results. The legislature lost track of its responsibilities as a legislative body. The democratic ideals were being violated increasingly frequently. The importance of public issues was brought to light as a result of public interest litigation.

The judicial system was compelled to take an active part because of the circumstances. It was only possible thanks to an institution such as the court, which is granted the authority to right the many distinct kinds of wrongs that exist in society. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have taken it upon themselves to find solutions to these issues to avoid jeopardizing the integrity of the democratic process.

The case, Vishaka vs. the State of Rajasthan (1997) is a significant one that highlights the requirement for judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court established a set of norms that all employers are required to adhere to ensure that women are treated in an appropriate manner. In addition, it was declared that these principles ought to be adhered to in the same manner as if they were laws until the Parliament passes a law mandating gender equality.[1]

In the case of Kesavananda Bharati (1973): In this case, the highest court in India ruled that the executive branch did not have the authority to intervene or alter the fundamental components of the constitution in any way.[2]

In C. Golaknath and Others vs. the State of Punjab and Others, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fundamental Rights that were inscribed in Part 3 were immune from change and that the legislative assembly was unable to alter them.[3]

In the State of Bihar (1979): The harsh and barbarous conditions of the undertrial detainees were reflected through the articles published in the press. The case was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the highest court in the country ruled that the right to a quick trial is a basic right. This decision was upheld by the court[4]. In the case of Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Indian Supreme Court rejected the argument that to deprive a person of his life or liberty, not only the procedure specified by law for doing so must be followed, but also that such procedure must be fair, reasonable, and just. This argument was presented in the context of the question of whether the protocol must be followed in order to deprive a person of his life or liberty.[5]


The ability of the judiciary to exercise self-control is essential to the maintenance of a harmonious relationship between the executive branch, the legislature, and the judicial branch. To show profound regard for the partitioning of governmental issues by upholding the law that was passed by the government after it was debated in the legislature. should avoid interfering with the functioning of the legislative and executive branches by staying out of their respective spheres of responsibility. In order to demonstrate respect for democratic forms of governance, it is customary to defer decision-making regarding policy to elected officials.

The case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is a well-known illustration that is frequently used to illustrate the constraint exercised by the Judiciary. According to the verdict, the possibility of a judicial review being conducted in specific instances was ruled out because the subject matter was political. [6]The power of Article 356 was seen to be a political subject by the court, which is why it refused to conduct judicial review. The court explained that if judicial standards were to be applied to political issues, then they would be entering the realm of politics, which is something that the court should avoid doing.[7]

On similar lines, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India (1998), refused to direct the Municipal Corporation on the subject of assigning responsibility for the cleanliness of Delhi. Instead, it declared that it may only designate authorities to performthe duty that is allocated as per law.[8]

The Indian judiciary has been under fire from a variety of quarters, including legal experts, practicing attorneys, and even Indian judges themselves, for its excessively activist and overreaching nature.Because the legislative is falling behind in its function, the judiciary tends to Overreach its function, which results in tension between the legislature and the judiciary. The following is a list of the obvious effects that would result from such an overreach on the part of the judiciary: there would be a challenge to the principle of the separation of powers, which would undermine the spirit of the Constitution. The public has the idea that the legislature is not taking any action, which contributes to the discord that exists between the legislature and the judiciary.In some situations, such as those involving the environment, ethics, and politics, specialized expertise is required, which the judicial system might not always have access to. If it passes judgment despite lacking any expertise in the aforementioned fields, then it not only casts doubt on the expert knowledge but also puts the country in jeopardy of suffering negative consequences.An instance of judicial overreach may result in an expression of contempt on the part of the court towards the elected representation. This could lead to a decline in public confidence in the democratic system as an institution.As a result, it is necessary for the courts to uphold the principle of separation of powers while maintaining their status as independent entities within their respective jurisdictions. In 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States reminded lower courts of the need of exercising judicial restraint. It said that judges "must know their limits and must try not to run the government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like emperors." Additionally, it said that judges "cannot cross their limits and try to take over states which belong to another organ of the state in the name of judicial activism."

There is a risk to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, which would be detrimental to the spirit of the document. The public has the idea that the legislature is not taking any action, which contributes to the discord that exists between the legislature and the judiciary.In some situations, such as those involving the environment, ethics, and politics, specialized expertise is required, which the judicial system might not always have access to. If it passes judgment despite lacking any expertise in the fields, then it not only casts doubt on the expert knowledge but also puts the country in jeopardy of suffering negative consequences.

The writ petition that led to the suppression of the film Jolly LLB II is one of the most well-known examples of judicial overreach. The petition claimed that the film's portrayal of the legal profession as a comedy constituted an act of contempt and provocation and that the film should therefore be banned. The Bombay High Court has ordered a committee consisting of three people to watch the film and submit their findings. It was determined that this was not necessary given that the Board of Film Certification already exists and possesses the authority to exercise censorship over motion pictures. Following the recommendations made in the committee's report, the director’s cut a total of four different scenes.[9] It was thought to violate Article 19(2) because it put restrictions on people's rights to speak [10] and express themselves freely.

When there is social, economic, or political injustice – or when there is a departure from the provisions of the law and the constitution – the activities of the executive branch may be subject to judicial review. When the legislature creates laws that go beyond constitutional limitations or behaves arbitrarily in a way that is antithetical to its fundamental structure, the highest court investigates and corrects the situation. Only a larger Bench or an amendment to the Constitution can function as a check on the court in cases when it has exceeded its authority. Even in modern times, the only way judges may be removed from their positions, as outlined in the Constitution, is through the process of impeachment, which is a Herculean undertaking that cannot be completed lightly. Due to the absence of accountability, the judicial branch must be cautious and show prudence in all its actions.


An alternate tradition began to emerge in the period between the two world wars as the red-light hypothesis was subjected to an increasing number of criticisms and objections. This history gave rise to a counter theory to the red-light theory that came to be known as the "green light theory." This theory claims that it is legal to utilize executive power to provide services for the good of the community. Therefore, the function of the courts in checking the behavior of the executive branch is an activity that is open to debate. On the other hand, it does not support unchecked or arbitrary action on the part of the state.

The Green Light Theory, which is also known as the Functionalist Theory, is characterized by its optimist viewpoint regarding the state. It is under the impression that the administration is amicable and cannot be suspected of engaging in any activities that are against the law. The green light theory emphasizes how crucial it is for administrative law to aid government action rather than meddling in it through judicial or political control. This is because the green light theory believes that this is the most effective use of administrative law. It hints athow the law might be utilized as a facilitating device, making it possible for administrative entities to wield it as a weapon.

This idea is motivated by the utilitarian theoryconnected with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It states that the greatest good for the greatest number in a state can be accomplished by encouraging governmental contribution with less control or intervention. Bentham and Mill were influential in the development of this theory. It asserts that the collective aims of the community may be realized within the democratic framework, and as a result, this theory does not intend to derogate individual rights or dispute the fundamental values and norms of a democratic society. This seems to imply that the collective (public) goals can be attained by endowing the Executive Branch with extensive powers and freeing it from the constraints of the Judicial Branch.

As a result, one of the primary goals of green light theory is to lessen the impact that the judicial system has on administration. This is because the courts, with their emphasis on legal principles, are seen as an impediment to the forward movement of administrative policy. The democratic method of responsibility is the one that gets the green light. Based on these presumptions, green light theorists give their approval to the facilitation of the administration by preventing any judicial or legal supervision over executive actions.


Laws are enacted to establish moral standards and advance public goals, both of which contribute to the maintenance of internal harmony within a society. On the other side, the judicial system functions as a kind of go-between between the administration, the people, and the law. In addition, the judicial system plays a significant role since it can interpret the laws, apply those laws to the facts of the case, and decide the conflicts that arise. In order for the judiciary to properly apply the law in a variety of situations, one of the primary responsibilities it is given is to interpret the statutes. The second inquiry centered on the possibility of assigning primary administrative responsibility to the judicial system. Something superior to the government, which would continually keep an eye on how it is being used, is necessary for effective administration. Since no one is above the law, as stated in Article 6, which means that neither individuals nor governments nor their officials are, and since the law is what enforces government, it is the responsibility of the courts to adhere to the law without showing any favoritism.

The green light theory emphasises the minimized involvement of the judiciary as it decreases the efficiency of the administrative setup. Additionally, it would maintain the democratic spirit and empower the doctrine of separation of powers. It intends to reduce the burden of courts by restricting their role to their domain.


If the state is regarded as being above the law, it would be relatively effortless for it to violate legal statutes. The attainment of policy objectives by the administration can be enhanced through the alleviation of control constraints. There are a limited number of laws that can be considered unlawful, as they are typically created by the government in accordance with constitutional guidelines. The act of opposition criticism towards the government has become a customary practice, serving as a means to prevent the creation of biased legislation by the administration. This convention also allows for the exposure of genuine flaws associated with said legislation by the opposition. Hence, in light of the executive branch's adherence to legal statutes and the distinct separation of the judiciary from the political legislative branch, it is imperative that the judiciary refrains from intervening unless the legislation poses a threat to individual liberties. The absence of a term limit for the Prime Minister of India implies that the individual holding the position may continue to serve the nation for an extended period, provided they satisfy the requisite age criteria. Due to the constraints of tenure, it is not feasible for employees of government-owned businesses or banks to serve the country for an extended duration. The concept of "equality before the law" is brought to the forefront in this particular scenario. According to the Green Light Theory, the superiority of the law over the executive is asserted. The question of ultimate authority between the administration and the court is a complex and difficult matter to ascertain. In India, the legal system holds a position of utmost authority. The operation of the government, along with all other aspects of society, is subject to legal regulation. The requirement for judicial intervention in cases where legislation is deemed arbitrary serves as a common ground between two opposing schools of thought. The protection of individuals' interests from interference is a crucial aspect, which is addressed by administrative law. It is imperative to conduct an assessment of the administrative status. The implementation of transparency measures within administrative authorities is imperative in order to mitigate the necessity for judicial intervention. The luminous signal of green hue. The concept proposes the implementation of internal control and argues that an unregulated government would be better equipped to provide enhanced services to its populace. However, presently, it would not be prudent to preclude the judiciary from exercising oversight over governmental actions. The implementation of the red-light theory could be deemed effective as the objective of public legislation is to promote individual freedom. It is imperative that the government be held responsible for any misconduct. Regardless of the identity of the perpetrator, the law retains ultimate authority in cases of malpractice or abuse of power. In instances where executive authorities assert that certain information falls outside the purview of the Right to Information and consequently declines to disclose it to the public, it is imperative to ensure that the court is apprised of the developments within the executive branch.

The concept of the green light approach raises apprehensions regarding the overly rigid nature of administrative legal interventions, which can impede efficient administration. Harlow and Rawlings have identified this issue as being characterized by "hair-splitting distinctions and terminological contortions". The limited and technical grounds for obtaining judicial review in practice have resulted in a reduction in the administration of justice. The Meadow v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[11] case highlights the aforementioned concerns, as evidenced by the court's reluctance to intervene, which was demonstrated through a limited application of the scope of judicial review. In certain situations, the courts may exercise deference in order to avoid impeding the administration process, in accordance with the principles of the green light theory. An example of this can be observed in situations where a legal case is subjected to judicial review and pertains to matters of national security, as exemplified by the Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service case. The [12]House of Lords has established a legal precedent that the possibility of judicial review is contingent upon the nature of executive power, thereby determining that the court is not empowered to scrutinize such matters. The concept of deference and non-justiciability, as it pertains to judicial review, involves the application of the green light theory within the framework of administrative law. The Indian judiciary has encountered instances where it has refrained from intervening and instead delegated the responsibility of addressing the matter to administrative authorities.

The case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai &Ors. pertains to the legal domain. [13]According to the Supreme Court, it is necessary for the aggrieved party to utilize any available alternative remedy provided by the law before seeking recourse through the judicial system. The principle commonly referred to as the "exhaustion of alternative remedies" is recognized in various legal contexts. The court opined that it ought not to intervene in the government's administrative decisions unless there is an evident breach of fundamental rights or a legal obligation.

The case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu was decided in 1999. It was determined by the Supreme Court that judicial intervention in the routine operations of administrative entities should be avoided and that such entities should be permitted to address issues in their manner, provided that their actions remain within legal boundaries. [14]The case of State of U.P. &Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh is a legal matter that warrants academic attention. The Supreme Court opined that the judiciary ought not to intervene in administrative policy or discretionary power exercised by the government unless it can be demonstrated that such policy or power is arbitrary or unreasonable.[15]

In the case of State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon &Ors, the Supreme Court ruled that as long as an administrative authority has decided within its jurisdiction, the court should refrain from intervening with the decision solely based on the fact that it would have made a different decision if it were in the position of the authority. [16]In the case of Union of India &Ors. v. Tulsiram Patel, the Supreme Court opined that the intervention of courts in administrative decision-making should be avoided unless there is a manifest error in law or fact, or the decision is tainted with malafide.[17]

The following examples from India illustrate instances where courts have refrained from intervening and have deferred to administrative authorities to address the matter at hand, in accordance with contemporary legal principles.

In the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd., the Supreme Court opined that judicial intervention in matters of policy or commercial decisions made by public authorities or public sector undertakings should be avoided unless such decisions are deemed to be arbitrary or capricious. [18]

In the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, the Supreme Court opined that it is not within the purview of the courts to intervene in the policy decisions made by the government or the Election Commission, unless such decisions are in clear contravention of the Constitution or the law. [19]

The case of the State of Karnataka v. Karnataka Pawn Brokers Association is of relevance. According to the Supreme Court, judicial intervention in the pricing policies of governmental or statutory entities should be avoided, unless such policies are deemed to be discriminatory or unreasonable. The High Court has asserted that the legislature possesses the authority to rectify the fundamental flaw identified by a court, in the event of the nullification of a legal provision, by enacting an appropriate amendment.[20] In the case of Ghanshyam Dass &Ors. v. Dominion of India &Ors. the Supreme Court opined that the armed forces possess the necessary expertise to manage matters of internal discipline and management. Therefore, the court should refrain from intervening in such matters.[21]


In the field of administrative law, the red-lighttheory, and the green light theory both hold a distinct point of view, while the amber light theory tends to bring about a point of consensus between the two. The amber light hypothesis proposes that administrative law ought to incorporate the beneficial aspects of both of the competing views. This theory identifies the essence of both "fire-watching" as well as "firefighting." The administrative law can perform "fire-watching" by setting good standards of administrative conduct and "firefighting" by nullifying erroneous administrative actions through court pronouncements. The amber light theorists believe that there must be a balance between both external as well as internal controlling mechanisms for effective public administration. The amber element theorists believe that there must green light theory, as both Harlow and Rawlings have acknowledged, does not aim to give the impression that it supports unrestrained or arbitrary action on the part of the state. In point of fact, it does not, to a certain part, dispute the rigidity of the red-light theory.

This theory was developed with the intention of defending a certain understanding of human rights.In this sense, the amber light theory is a synthesis that combines the necessity for some control over administrative decisions with concern for setting good standards of administrative conduct, effective decision-making, accountability, and human rights. Although it has a close association with both theories, it does not support the existence of either theory when it is considered in isolation. It recognizes the fundamental premises of both systems and makes an effort to find common ground between them.

The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India established that the Constitution of India recognizes the right to travel abroad as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court made this ruling. The court opined that the judiciary and the legislature must collaborate in order to prevent the promulgation of laws that are capricious or unjustifiable, and that infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals. [22]

The Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi case resulted in the decriminalization of homosexuality in India through the striking down of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code by the Delhi High Court. The judiciary determined that the legislation was in contravention of the basic liberties of members of the LGBT community, and thus, deemed it unconstitutional. The court opined that it is imperative for the judiciary and legislature to collaborate to ensure that the laws are coordinated with the evolving social dynamics of the nation. [23]

The case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India resulted in the issuance of a set of directives by the Supreme Court aimed at addressing pollution in the Ganges River. As per the Constitution of India, the court established that the entitlement to a pristine environment is a crucial right. The judiciary also mandated the executive to formulate and implement legal frameworks and policies aimed at safeguarding the natural environment. The judiciary and legislature were deemed responsible by the court to collaborate in safeguarding the environment and promoting sustainable development. [24]The cases serve as a testament to the significance of collaboration between the judiciary and the legislature in maintaining the supremacy of law and safeguarding the entitlements of the populace in India.


After reading about all these different perspectives, one conclusion that can be drawn is that those in charge of public administration should be given some leeway to make decisions regarding how to carry out their responsibilities. However, there should not be any lack of oversight or control over the administration. The powers that they possess need to have certain restrictions placed on them to stop any potential misapplication or abuse of those powers. To safeguard individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law should be given absolute precedence.


[1]Vishaka v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 [2]Kesavananda Bharati v State ofKerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 [3]I.C. Golaknath and Others v. the State of Punjab and Others, 1967 AIR 1643 [4]Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar,1979 AIR 1369 [5]Gopalan v. State of Madras,1950 SCR 88 [6] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918 [7] INDIA CONST. art. 356 [8]Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1726. [9]Jolly LLB 2 can be screened only after 4 shots are cut: HC, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, (Feb 6,2017), [10] INDIA CONST. art. 19(2), [11] Meadow v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 2 IR 701 [12] Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, 1984 3 All ER 935 [13]State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai &Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1006 [14]A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, 1994 (3) SCC 1 [15] State of U.P. &Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 [16] State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon &Ors. 1975 AIR 563 [17]Union of India &Ors. v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 [18] Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd.2018 3 SCC 133 [19]Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002 (3) SCR 294 [20]State of Karnataka v. Karnataka Pawn Brokers Association, 2018 6 SCC 363 [21]Ghanshyam Dass &Ors. v. Dominion of India &Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1004 [22]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 [23]Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 DLT 277 [24]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086

bottom of page