Having heard learned counsel and on perusal of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Soumya Ann Thomas, as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd., what follows is that Section 10A(1) of the Act has been held to be unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. However, to save it from the vice of unconstitutionality, the expression of 'two years' has been read down to 'one year' in sub-section (1) of Section 10A of the Act. The Kerala High Court's pronouncement on the constitutionality of a provision of a Central Act would be applicable throughout India. This is made clear by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd., wherein it has been stated that an order passed on a Writ Petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or final keeping in view the
provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON' BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITON NO.13112/2012 (GM-RES-PIL)
Mr.SHIV KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA
Citation: AIR 2014 karnataka 73, MANU/KA/0540/2014
