Blog

Case Title: We, The People of India vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 1203/2024 (Writ Petition (Criminal) likely)

Date of Decision: May 20, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

FACTS OF THE CASE

-The case, W.P.(CRL) 1203/2024, involves a writ petition filed by a party identifying themselves as “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA” against the Union of India and others. The petitioner is represented by Mr. Karan Pal Singh, Advocate, while various respondents, including the Union of India, are represented by different legal representatives.

-On May 20, 2024, the Acting Chief Justice and Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued a judgment concerning two miscellaneous applications: CRL.M.A. 15552/2024 and CRL.M.A. 15551/2024.

-In CRL.M.A. 15552/2024, the petitioner sought exemption from certain requirements, which was granted by the court, subject to all just exceptions.

-CRL.M.A. 15551/2024 was filed seeking waiver of costs amounting to Rs. 75,000/- imposed on the petitioner by the court in its final order/judgment dated April 22, 2024. The petitioner tendered an unconditional apology for their actions before the court and expressed their understanding of the judicial system and laws of the land after reading the final order. They acknowledged their mistake and tendered the apology. The petitioner, described as a student from the lower-middle class fully dependent on their parents, stated their inability to bear the imposed costs.

-After considering the petitioner’s apology and their financial circumstances, the court waived the imposed costs of Rs. 75,000/-. However, the court directed that if the petitioner or its deponent filed any fresh proceedings in any court, they must annex a copy of the judgment dated April 22, 2024, and a copy of this order.

-Overall, the case revolves around the petitioner seeking exemption and waiver of costs, citing personal and financial circumstances as mitigating factors.

ISSUES

1. Whether the petitioner’s application seeking waiver of costs of Rs. 75,000 imposed by the court should be granted.
2. Whether the petitioner’s unconditional apology and acknowledgment of mistake warrant a waiver of the imposed costs.
3. Whether the petitioner’s financial circumstances, being a student from a lower middle-class background, justify the waiver of costs.
4. Whether the court’s decision to waive the costs is contingent upon the petitioner and/or its deponent refraining from filing any fresh proceedings in any court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section empowers the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
2. Judicial discretion: The court has the discretion to waive costs or impose penalties based on the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties involved.
3. Precedent: The court may consider past judgments and legal principles established in similar cases while deciding whether to grant exemption from costs.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

-The contentions of the appellant, identified as “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA,” in the case W.P.(CRL) 1203/2024 are not explicitly mentioned in the provided text. However, based on the nature of the case and the fact that the appellant is seeking exemption from certain requirements and waiver of costs, we can infer some possible contentions.  The appellant may contend that there was a violation of their legal rights or the law by the respondents (Union of India and others). This violation could be related to constitutional rights, statutory provisions, or any other legal obligations. The appellant might argue that the judgement dated April 22, 2024, imposing a cost of Rs. 75,000/- was unreasonable or unjustified. They could claim that the reasons provided by the court for imposing the cost were unfounded or that the amount of the cost was excessive given their circumstances.The appellant could assert that there was an error in the legal analysis conducted by the court in its previous judgement. They might argue that the court misinterpreted the law or applied it incorrectly to the facts of the case. As indicated in the text, the appellant is described as a student from the lower-middle class, dependent on their parents, and unable to afford the imposed costs. Therefore, one of their contentions could be based on their financial circumstances, arguing that they should be exempt from the costs due to their inability to pay.  The appellant may also contend that they have acknowledged their mistake, tendered an unconditional apology, and demonstrated an understanding of the judicial system and laws of the land. Therefore, they might request leniency from the court in the form of waiving the imposed costs.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

-The text provided doesn’t explicitly outline the contentions of the respondents, namely the Union of India and others. However, based on the context provided, we can infer some potential contentions. The respondents may argue that the costs imposed by the court in its previous judgement were justified based on the actions or behaviour of the appellant. They might contend that the appellant’s conduct warranted the imposition of costs as a deterrent against frivolous litigation or inappropriate behaviour in court.  The respondents might assert that they have complied with all legal requirements and obligations in the case. They could argue that the actions taken by them were in accordance with the law and that there was no basis for the appellant’s claims or requests. The respondents could oppose the appellant’s request for waiver of costs, arguing that the appellant has not provided sufficient grounds for such relief. They might contend that the appellant’s financial circumstances or apology are not relevant factors in determining whether costs should be waived. The respondents may seek to uphold the previous judgement of the court, which imposed costs on the appellant. They could argue that the court’s decision was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the appellant’s actions. The respondents might request that the court ensure that the appellant complies with any conditions set forth in the judgement, such as attaching copies of the judgement to any future legal proceedings filed by the appellant. These potential contentions suggest that the respondents are likely to defend the previous judgement of the court and oppose the appellant’s request for waiver of costs. They may emphasise the importance of upholding legal principles and ensuring accountability in the judicial process.

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

– In the case of W.P.(CRL) 1203/2024, the petitioner, represented by Mr. Karan Pal Singh, Advocate, filed an application seeking waiver of costs amounting to Rs. 75,000 imposed by the court in its final order/judgement dated 22nd April, 2024. The petitioner submitted the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, asserting that he was tendering an unconditional apology for his actions before the court. He claimed to have gained a better understanding of the judicial system and laws of the land after reviewing the final order. Additionally, the petitioner, described as a student, emphasised his financial dependency on his parents, stating that he belonged to the lower middle class and was incapable of bearing the imposed costs.

– The court, presided over by Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, heard the matter and considered the submissions made by the petitioner. It noted that the costs were initially imposed due to the untenable legal submissions and contrary facts presented in the petitioner’s writ petition. The court, recognizing the necessity for a course correction, imposed the costs. However, in light of the petitioner’s acknowledgment of his mistake and the tendering of an unconditional apology, the court exercised its discretion to waive the imposed costs amounting to Rs. 75,000.

– While granting the waiver, the court issued a directive that if the petitioner or its deponent were to file any fresh proceedings in any court, they must annex a copy of the judgement dated 22nd April, 2024, along with a copy of the present order. This directive serves as a precautionary measure to ensure transparency and adherence to legal principles in any future legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner or its representative.

-The judgement, delivered on May 20, 2024, demonstrates the court’s careful consideration of the petitioner’s apology, financial circumstances, and the necessity for upholding legal principles while maintaining fairness and justice. It reflects the court’s exercise of judicial discretion in balancing the interests of the parties involved and ensuring equitable outcomes in the administration of justice.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view Judgement