INTRODUCTION

This case was a landmark judgement in Indian legal regime on 29/04/1988 as it stated
that the instances of corruption that can be heard by a special judge cannot be
forwarded to the high court which restricted by limitation of human foresight. This case
is also significant as in this serious allegation put on CM of Maharashtra which led him
to resigned from his post in 1982. This case addressed the question of separation of the
judiciary’s and the executive power and established the doctrine of pleasure law, which
governs judges removal.

BACKGROUND

This case arose when Mr. Antulay, was a CM of Maharashtra, issued an executive order
for allocation of funds to a trust controlled by him which put serious allegations on him
of power abuse which made him resigned from his respected CM post on 20/01/1982,
but continued to be a MLA. RS Nayak, was a member of Legislative Council.

On 01/09/1981BJP individual approached governor under section 197 of CrPC, 1973

and section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for approval to bring a suit against
appellant.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the resolution creating the SIC was
unconstitutional and went against natural justice principles. The court stated that the
SIC did not adhere to the natural justice standards, such as the right to be heard, the
right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to legal representation, and that it was
established with the express intent of investigating Antulay. In order to end the
investigation into Antulay, the Supreme Court invalidated the resolution. The court
further noted that Antulya’s charges of corruption might still be investigated and
prosecuted, but that it would need to be done in a fair and unbiased manner and with
the protection of his fundamental rights. Antulay’s right to use appellate remedy was
curtailed.

The court addressed the scope of judicial review and concluded the judiciary could not
affect the executive’s policy decisions. The courts’ responsibility is to guarantee that the
administration acts within the bounds of the law and the Constitution. The judiciary had
the authority to examine executive activity and revoke unlawful and unconstitutional
actions.

The Supreme Court and High Court have no right to extend their or inferior court
jurisdiction. This power lies with only parliament by law.

CONCLUSION
The Antulay – Nayak case, one of the most prominent corruption scandals in Indian
political history, had a profound effect on Maharashtra’s political climate as well as the
political climate of the country as a whole.

This case established that any attempt to weaken the separation of powers between the
executive and the legislature is unconstitutional and set a precedent for similar cases in
the future. The case has been heralded as a landmark decision in Indian constitutional
law and has been referenced in numerous following instances concerning inquiries and
investigations into public officials. The fundamental principle of natural justice, the right
to a fair trial, and the requirement that the accused be given a reasonable opportunity to
be heard and to present their case were established.