he Supreme Court Tuesday suggested a lawyer who appeared in person to visit the bar library to resolve his predicament over a constitutional position that a Central legislation can only be challenged in the Supreme Court and not in the High Court.
Harshal N. Mirashi, a lawyer, who filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Epidemic Act, told the court that he approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the understanding that a challenge to the validity of a central legislation could only be agitated before this court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Benrjee responded with candidness told the petitioner that a quick reading of Durga Das Basu’s ‘Shorter Constitution of India’ would have resolved his predicament.
The bench dismissed the petition in view of the power of judicial review conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226.
Read the Order