No immunity for president as a contract party

Subject : Polity

Section: Executive

Concept :

The Supreme Court of India held that immunity cannot be claimed by the government from the application of law to a contract only because one of the parties to it is the President of India.
It was also ruled that the adjudicator should be “impartial and independent”.

Other details of the Case:

The pistol maker Glock Asia-Pacific Limited filed a petition against the Union for the appointment of an arbitrator to a dispute regarding a tender.
The agreement enabled the Home Secretary to appoint an officer in the Ministry of Law to be the sole arbitrator.
The SC held that the agreement was a clear violation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
According to the provision, a person in a prior relationship with any party to the arbitration in terms of the employee, consultant, advisor, etc would be ineligible to become an arbitrator.
The apex Court held 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.