#PIL Archives - Prime Legal

2 Apr

The Bombay High Court considering the steps taken by ECI in educating the people about the NOTA option, dismissed the PIL which sought for enhancement on the same

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #ECI, #NOTA, #PIL, #PUCL, #VotersEducation

Case title: Suhas Manohar Wankhede Vs Election Commission of India & Ors.

Case no.: PIL NO. 33 of 2024

Decision on: March 22nd, 2024

Quoram: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge AND Justice R. M. Joshi

Facts of the case

The petitioner through a PIL expressed concerns about the Election Commission of India’s endeavour to educate voters about Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) specifically the use of the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option. The petitioner pleaded the ECI to appoint a brand ambassador and initiate a campaign on promoting awareness and understanding of the NOTA option. He placed reliance on People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr Vs. Union of India and Anr. case, in line of his plea.

The Counsel for the Union of India and the Election Commission of India submitted that since the Petitioner had earlier filed a PIL on an identical matter, this Court should not entertain the instant Petition and contended that it deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs as it is publicity oriented.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court on perusal of the submissions made by the parties and the earlier PIL on the subject matter noted that the pleadings presented in the instant case are identical earlier PIL filed by this Petitioner, wherein the petitioner aggrieved that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is violating the directives of the Supreme Court. The petitioner referenced the same judgment as in the earlier case to support his claims.

The court examined a pamphlet titled “Chunav Ka Parv, Desh Ka Garv, Lok Sabha Election 2024” presented by the ECI, which served as a pictorial guide to the voters. The Court noted that the pamphlet contained information on the voting process, including the use of EVMs and the NOTA option. It elaborated on the steps to spread awareness among the voters on, (a) the process of registration online as well as off line, (b) verification of details, (c) enrolment as a new voter, (d) method of searching the name in the voters’ list, etc. So also, the voter is made aware that a holiday is declared on the polling day to facilitate casting of vote. A catchy statement is also set out as “It is not a holiday, it is a voting day”.

The Court further brought out the rulings of Apex Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another case. The Supreme Court in this case declared that Rules 41(2) and (3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 were ultra vires to section 128 of the Representation of the People Act and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, to the extent that they violate secrecy of voting. The Election Commission was directed to make a necessary provision in the ballot paper/EVMs and add another button called “NOTA” in the EVMs, so that the voters who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any candidate, are able to exercise their right to vote for NOTA, while maintaining their right of secrecy. The Election Commission was directed to undertake an awareness programme to educate the masses.

The Court, in light of the above findings noted that the Election Commission has already come out with a manual on Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP), in July 2020. Moreover, considering the steps taken by the ECI and the State Election Commission and the fact that this Petitioner had filed an identical Petition earlier, the Court dismissed the present PIL petition. However, it refrained from imposing costs on the petitioner as he was a Ph.D. student and directed the registry to scrutinize any future petitions filed by him on similar issues before registering them.

“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 – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

17 Jan

Bombay High Court quashes PIL which is poorly drafted and presented; calls it haphazard to the justice system

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #law, #legalnews, #PIL

TITLE : Forum for fast Justice V University of Mumbai

CORAM : Hon’ble Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

DATE : 15^th January 2024

CITATION : PIL No.49 of 2024

FACTS

A PIL was filed to direct the university and BCI to verify whether all law colleges under the jurisdiction of Mumbai University has functioning legal aid cells and to grant funds to run legal aid cells. The maintainability of the petition was challenged in the current case. It was argued by the petitioners that the PIL is not vague and invoked Article 39-A of the constitution.

LAWS INVOLVED

Article 39-A of the Constitution of India provides for “equal justice” and “free legal aid” and it was for the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice.

ISSUES

Whether the PIL is maintainable

JUDGEMENT

The court observed that the petitioners did not present any material on record which proves that the state is not fulfilling its objective on legal aid. There is no legal basis to the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner has also not proved maintainability in the court.

The court took reference to another PIL which was considered to be baseless. It stated that poorly drafted and haphazardly presented petitions will not be entertained by the court. It firmly held that :

“the judicial system operates with limited time and resources, and frivolous or poorly presented PILs burden the Court and hinder the resolution of other genuine and urgent cases”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

26 Dec

The burden of proof to prove the unconstitutionality of a subordinate legislation lies heavily upon the party challenging it : Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #bomabyhc, #constitutionality, #law, #legalnews, #PIL, #Ultravires

TITLE : Sandeep Thakur v State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S.Doctor

DATE : 22^nd December, 2023

CITATION : PIL No. 123 of 2016

FACTS

A PIL was filed expressing concerns about the parking spaces as laid down in the Unified Development Control And Promotion Regulations. As per the guidelines it gives powers to the authorities to increase the parking requirements by modifying the existing regulations. The contentions is that the state government has acted arbitrarily rendering the provisions of UDCPR null and void. The opposing counsel held that the UDCPR is a subordinate legislation and that it does not violate the provisions of the constitution. In the prayer of PIL, it wished that the court direct Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NNMC) to revise the norms for parking spaces based on the data of ownership of vehicles and density. The state argued that the laws has been modified through the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 37(1aa) of MRTP act gives the power to the state government to modify any act or legislation in the matter of public interest through the virtue of a notification published in the official gazette.

ISSUES

Whether the UDCPR is unconstitutional and arbitrary?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that a subordinate legislation is not as immune from the challenge of a statute. It can be questioned on the grounds available for questioning or challenging an act of legislation. Subordinate legislation can be challenged on the ground of being contrary to any act of parliament or through a ground of unreasonableness. Such unreasonableness should be in the sense of arbitrariness and not just reasonability.

It is presumed that a subordinate legislation is constitutional and it is the duty of the petitioners to prove the unconstitutionality of it. The court stated that the previous PIL judgement on the same issue noticed that there is a need for better parking spaces.

The court directed NMMC to take a better look on the need to have better parking spaces as per the provisions of UDCPR.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

10 Nov

Supreme Court Leaves Law Unresolved If PIL Is not at all Maintainable in Service Matters

Prime Legal

Blog #PIL, #SupremeCourt

Title: Pratap Singh Bist v. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Decided on: 03 November, 2023

+ Diary No. 41779/2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court expressed skepticism about the Delhi High Court’s ruling that a PIL is “not at all” maintainable in Service Matters, referring to the matter as a “debatable issue” and hearing an appeal stemming from it. As a result, the Court has left the matter open, and the proper case will decide this.

Facts of the Case

In this instance, a writ petition contesting the appointments of respondents (no. 5 to 17) to the position of teacher was brought in 2017 as a Public Interest Litigation by one Pratap Singh Bist (Petitioner). These appointments were made in 2008 through the New Delhi-based Directorate of Education. They were accused of lacking the necessary credentials to be employed as teachers. Nonetheless, the Delhi High Court declined to intervene in relation to these contested nominations in its contested ruling. After reviewing the respondent’s comprehensive affidavit, the court determined that the necessary qualification was there. It was decided that the respondents, who ranged from 5 to 17, qualify for the position.

Courts analysis and decision

The respondent numbers five through seventeen have already served for nearly fifteen years, the highest court emphasized. Based on this forecast, the Court declined to intervene in the nomination process. It did, however, have concerns about PIL’s unmaintainability in terms of service issues. The court went on to say that, in light of this Court’s ruling in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273, the second reason given by the High Court—that “PIL is not at all maintainable in service matters”—is a contentious matter that should be investigated further in a suitable case.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

7 Nov

One Can’t Use Article 226 For Fulfilling Hidden Intent In The Name Of Public Interest: High Court Of Delhi

Prime Legal

blog #Article 226, #Misuse, #PIL, #Public Good

Title: Ms. Sabiha Parveen V Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: W.P.(C) 11646/2023 & Cm Appl. 45465/2023

Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Introduction:

Petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) , In the said PIL the stated reliefs are being asked:

directing the Respondents for immediate removal/sealing of Illegal and unauthorized construction.
Directing the Respondents for immediate sealing of structure in the form of unauthorized illegal construction /structure running Hotels at two sites (i.e., properties no. 7 & 8) in Darya Ganj / Old Delhi – Jama Masjid without having necessary permission from government authorities and Fire clearance / NOC from respondent.
Directing the Respondent for immediate removal electricity connections installed at Illegal and unauthorized construction

Facts:

Petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and the petition is not guided by self-gain or for any other person/ institution/ body/ and that there is no motive other than of Public Interest in filling the writ petition.

Respondent, prior to filing of the writ petition on 10.05.2023 had lodged a police complaint against the Petitioner in respect of extortion, threat, etc. and as no action was taken in respect of the complaint lodged, he approached the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor on 23.05.2023.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

On the basis of several judgements cited and presented, it is clear that a person who has not come with clean hands is not entitled for any relief and, in the present case, it is clearly visible that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.

Nothing prevented the Petitioner from disclosing the relationship with Respondent. The Petitioner who was present in person has admitted the relationship with Respondent in open Court and, therefore, as the Petitioner was certainly an interested person, the Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to Army Battle Causalities Welfare Fund within 30 days from today.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view the judgement

1 2