NDLI: State of Kerala Vs. Union of India

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Borrowing by States
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Order
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Kerala Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2003 (29 of 2003) Constitution of India, Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 (39 of 2003)
Case Type	Original Suit
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Matter Referred to Larger Bench
Headnote	Constitution of India – Article 293 – Borrowing by States – Union of India inter alia imposed Net Borrowing Ceiling on the State of Kerala, to restrict its maximum possible borrowing – Suit filed by State of Kerala on the premise that by undertaking the impugned actions, Union of India imposed ceiling on all its borrowings, and exceeded its power u/Article 293 – It also sought interim injunction, inter alia, to mandate Union of India to restore the position that existed before it imposed ceiling on all its borrowings; and to enable it to borrow INR 26,226 crores on an immediate basis: Held: Since Article 293 has so far not been the subject of any authoritative interpretation by this Court, the questions arising in the present suit squarely fall within the ambit of Article 145(3) of the Constitution – Questions referred to Constitution Bench of five judges – Matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench – Further, the Plaintiff-State also sought mandatory injunction and hence, was required to meet a higher standard for the triple-test of interim relief – Prima facie, the argument of the Union is accepted that where there is over-utilization of the borrowing limit in the previous year, to the extent of over- borrowing, deductions are permissible in the succeeding year, even beyond the award period of the 14th Finance Commission– Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding its contention on under-utilization of borrowing – The mischief that is likely to ensue in the event of granting the interim relief, will be far greater than rejecting the same – Balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of the Union of India – Plaintiff sought to equate ‘financial hardship’ with ‘irreparable injury’ – Prima facie ‘monetary damage’ is not an irreparable loss, as the Court can always balance the equities in its final outcome by ensuring that pending claims are adjusted along with resultant additional liability on the opposite party – If the State has essentially created financial hardship because of its own financial mismanagement, such hardship cannot be held to be an irreparable injury that would necessitate an interim relief against Union – Since the Plaintiff-State failed to establish the three prongs of proving prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it is not entitled to the interim injunction. [Paras 8, 10, 27, 28, 32, 33] Injunctions – Mandatory injunctions vis-à-vis prohibitory injunctions – Triple-Test – Prima facie case; Balance of convenience; Irreparable injury – Standard of scrutiny in applying these parameters for ‘prohibitory’ and ‘mandatory’ injunctions: Held: Prohibitory injunctions vary from mandatory injunctions in terms of the nature of relief sought – While the former seeks to restrain the defendant from doing something, the latter compels the defendant to take a positive step – Prohibitory injunctions are forward-looking as they seek to restrict a future course of action – Conversely, mandatory injunctions are backward-looking because they require the defendant to take an active step and undo the past action– Courts are, therefore, relatively more cautious in granting mandatory injunction as compared to prohibitory injunction and thus, require the plaintiff to establish a stronger case – In the present case, the Plaintiff sought mandatory injunction and not a prohibitory one – Instead of arguing that the Defendant-Union of India should refrain from imposing a Net Borrowing Ceiling during the next F.Y., the Plaintiff applied for a backward-looking injunction, i.e., for an injunction to undo the imposition of the Net Borrowing Ceiling that covered various liabilities and to restore the position that existed before such ceiling – Hence, was required to meet a higher standard for the triple-test of interim relief. [Paras 13-15] Words and Phrases – “if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends” in Article 131 of the Constitution of India.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 253
Petitioner	State Of Kerala
Respondent	Union Of India
SCR	[2024] 4 S.C.R. 13
Judgement Date	2024-04-01
Case Number	1

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

State of Kerala Vs. Union of India

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jai Bir Singh

Sita Soren Vs. Union of India

Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Dhansai Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

National Travel Services Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, Viii

Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Esi Corporation

I.r. Coelho (dead) By Lrs. Etc. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Etc.

Santhini Vs. Vjjaya Venketesh

Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.p. Tr. Prinl. Sec. Home & Ors.

State of Kerala Vs. Union of India

State of Kerala Vs. Union of India

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jai Bir Singh

Sita Soren Vs. Union of India

Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Dhansai Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

National Travel Services Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, Viii

Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Esi Corporation

I.r. Coelho (dead) By Lrs. Etc. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Etc.

Santhini Vs. Vjjaya Venketesh

Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.p. Tr. Prinl. Sec. Home & Ors.

State of Kerala Vs. Union of India