All People's Congress v NASMOS & Another

Facts

A political party sued a government agency and a ministry in the High Court for possession of premises. The defendants argued the claim was irregular because it had not been brought under the Petitions of Right Act, which required a fiat before the Government could be sued. The High Court referred the question to the Supreme Court under section 124(2) of the Constitution.

Issue

Did section 133(1) of the 1991 Constitution abolish the need for a fiat or petition of right, even though Parliament had not yet passed the Act contemplated by section 133(2)?

Held

Yes. Section 133(1) was plain and operative on its own. The provisions of the Petitions of Right Act requiring a fiat were void for inconsistency with the Constitution, and the claim could proceed like a claim against any other person.

Principle

The Constitution is supreme; an existing law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and a constitutional right can operate before Parliament passes implementing legislation.

Why it matters

Shows the Supreme Court's reference jurisdiction under section 124 and the use of the literal and purposive rules of interpretation.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.