Apex Digest

Join Group
Argument Lab/For Respondent/States and Municipal Authorities Supporting Directions — (2026) 1 SCC 774
For RespondentConstitutional Premium

States and Municipal Authorities Supporting Directions — (2026) 1 SCC 774

The directions issued by this Court are necessary to protect public safety under Article 21.

In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price — (2026) 1 SCC 774

Core Argument

The directions issued by this Court are necessary to protect public safety under Article 21. Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, 2023 cannot be interpreted to mandate the presence of stray dogs in sensitive institutional areas such as schools and hospitals. The Court's exercise of power under Article 142 is valid and necessary to remedy systemic administrative failure.

Key Precedents

  • Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 — Constitution Bench affirmed the plenary nature of Article 142 powers, holding that prohibitions in ordinary laws cannot ipso facto act as limitations on constitutional powers.
  • Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231 — Constitution Bench held that Article 142 powers can be exercised to modulate statutory application consistent with constitutional values, as long as the order is not plainly and expressly barred by statutory provisions based on fundamental principles of public policy.
  • Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 — Constitution Bench held that Article 142 powers are curative and cannot be used to supplant substantive law, but can be exercised to balance equities and iron out creases.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorAnnual Plan Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.

Upgrade to Annual Plan

Disclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in

Join Group