Immunity for President

Why in news? Recently, Supreme Court has held that the government cannot claim immunity from the application of law to a contract merely because one of the parties to it is the President of India.

About:

• Judgment came in a petition filed against the Union government regarding appointment of an arbitrator that has been considered as contrary to provisions under Arbitration Act, 1996.
• Government contended that contract was entered into in name of President and thus enjoys immunity.
• Supreme Court (SC) said that Article 299 of the Constitution (contracts made by the Union or State in the name of the President or Governor) does not enable the government to break the statutory law.

Article 299 of Indian Constitution

• All contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President, or by the Governor of the State, as the case may be, and all such contracts and all assurances of property made in the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorize.
• Neither the President nor the Governor shall be personally liable in respect of any contract or assurance made or executed for the purposes of this Constitution, or for the purposes of any enactment relating to the Government of India heretofore in force, nor shall any person making or executing any such contract or assurance on behalf of any of them be personally liable in respect thereof.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/presidents-name-in-a-contract-is-no-immunity-against-the-application-of-law-to-test-its-conditions-sc-holds/article66874023.ece