You can grab notes for other topics from here.
Facts- A government servant had a second right to appeal under Article 320 of the Constitution. It talked about the consultation process with the UPSC and SPSC (State Public Service Commission) in all disciplinary matters. Here they were not consulted. The court decided that since the aim is to punish corrupt officers they interpreted shall be directory that is to have the implication of may.
Take away from the case- “The question whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the Legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained not only from the phraseology of the provision but also by considering its nature, its design and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other. The court may consider inter alia, the nature and design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other; the impact of other provisions in question is avoided; the circumstances namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provision is or is not visited by some penalty; the serious or the trivial consequences, that flow therefrom; and above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.
If by holding a statute mandatory serious general inconvenience will be created to innocent persons without very much further the object of the enactment, the same will be construed as directory.
You can grab notes for other topics from here.
