Saturday, June 9, 2012

GANGA POLLUTION MATTER Constitution of India – Maintainability Of Writ Petition- Article 12- Public Interest Litigation


GANGA POLLUTION MATTER Constitution of India – Maintainability Of Writ Petition- Article 12- Public Interest Litigation




1.                       In Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 137 (1803)-In case of conflict between law made by parliament (Congress) and the provision of Constitution, the duty of the Court is to enforce Constitution and ignore the law.
2.                      From Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhi Chand A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1622, the Supreme Court has held that the concept of Public Interest Litigation is to enforce the provisions of Constitution of India in respect of the mandate issued in Chapter III, which is more the less the duty caste upon the authorities for protection of Fundamental Right and to endeavor the D Directive Principle of State Policy. Article 19 – Burden of Prove – Nature and Extent of Right – Distinguished form statute rights - Dhram Dutt v. Union of India (2004) Vol. 1 SCC 712 – a restriction on the activities of the Association is not a restriction on the activity on the individual citizen forming membership of Association – Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001 under challenged – Right and Restriction to be dealt with Article 19 (2) to (6) Article 300–A and 19 (1) (f) – Tibia Collage case AIR 1962 SC 448 followed. Society is incapable of holding property.
3.                     Peoples Union of Civil liberties vs. Union of India (2004) Vol. 2 SCC 476 freedom of Speech includes Right of Information as a fundamental right.
4.                      Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal  (2004) 2 SCC 510- flag code -Emblems and Names (pervasion of Improper use ) Act, 1950 and prevention of inserts to National Honour act, 1971 – fling of nation is a symbols of free expression 19 (1)(A) thus a fundamental right – American right to burn nation US flag is not approve in India. Right to fling nation is a fundamental duty but they are subject to restriction under chapter VI A – Article 51 A.
5.                       Article 141 Precedent- observation form a judgement have to be considered in the light of question refereed therein Mahatab Dawoed Shaikh vs. State of Maharastra  (2004) 2 SCC 362

6.                         Article 13- Government Circular- not law within its meaning- State of Kerela vs. Chandra Mohanan (2004) 3 SCC 429 .

7.                        Prohibition on sale of eggs within Rishikesh municipality- Not Unreasonable  Restriction and the same should be viewed from Religious Background – Major Source of Revenue to the Municipality under section 298 -Om Prakash vs. State of U. P. (2004) 3 SCC 402.


8.                 That the framer of constitution has miserably forgotten the basic and elementary principles of jurisprudence and legal theory; that "every night implies the forbearance on the part of others to perform his duty. Every right is correlated and coexistent with duty "The preamble of our constitution was not having the boosting prospects to its citizen of our constitution was not having the boosting prospects to its citizens for resolving India as "Sovereign democratic republic and for endeavor the unity of nation till 3rd January 1977.
9.                       That these fundamental duties ten in numbers touch almost all important aspects of National life of an individual life of an individual as well as nation. These are true Magna Charta by adopting an adhering to which in our life. We can achieve the objective of an egalitarian society, free from corruption, oppression, favoritism, and nepotism. Each of these duties, when decoded and dilated, will go to encompass, the various facet of human activity and behavior; a remedy to most evils plaguing our society -an educational institution; a public undertaking etc. The present day crisis is the result of the phenomenon where tried to achieve right while forgetting corresponding duties as reciprocal to fundamental rights. We may get rid of the despotic and corrupt tendencies of authority in politics and administration having pressure groups ever hungry and lustful for privilege and power.
10.                   That by the constitution (first amendment) Act 1951, there have been further restrictions to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business for professional or technical qualification as well as carrying on any occupation, trade or business by the state and its instrumentality to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens. Thus the question arises as to whether there may not be a valid test of classification based on qualities or characteristics necessarily coupled with the object of legislation based on intelligible differential, which has certain nexus with the realities of the time to dealt with the law and order situation by providing necessary restriction over the unchecked liberty granted to the individual detrimental to its integrity and sovereignty for prohibition to avail the benefit of equality clause by taking the rescue for forbid classification. . There cannot be any enforceable fundamental right to an individual for indulging in anti national activities. Thus the verdict given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Limited Vs Union of India 1980 (3) SCC 625 is required to be reviewed for effective enforcement of the duties caste upon the citizen by passing through the test of "Form and Object" and "Pith and Substance" to mould and replace by the test of "Direct and Inevitable" effect.      

11.                    That the chapter of fundamental duties in part (IV A under article 51 A has been introduced by our constitution (Forty second amendment) Act, 1976(w.e.f 3.1.1977). The insertion of new Article 31 C i.e. saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles, notwithstanding anything contained in the article 13, no law giving effect the policy of state towards securing the principles laid down in part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is in consistent with or takes away or abridge any of the right conferred under the Article 14 &19 of the constitution. The Supreme Court of Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India 1980 (3) S.C.C page 625 has laid down the same as unconstitutional holding "that it virtually tears away the hearts of basic fundamental freedom without which a free democracy is impossible. This is a charter of class legislation.” The Article 31-D pertaining to " saving of the law in respect of anti-national Activities" has already been omitted by the constitution (Forty third amendment) Act 1977 w.e.f 13.4.1978. The other Article 39(f) providing "Protection to children" by giving them opportunities and facilities in healthy manner and in conditions of freedom & dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against moral and material abandonment" has been inserted w.e.f. 3.1.1977. Equal justice and free legal aid for securing justice to economically weaker classes and other disable down trodden citizens under Article 39 A is on account of 42nd constitutional amendment. The participation of workers in the management of industries and protection and improvement of Environment and safeguarding of the forest in wild life under Article 43 A and 48 A respectively have also been inserted by virtue of 42nd constitutional amendment, Act, 1977. We could not achieve to cherish the goal enshrined under Article 44 providing uniform civil court for the citizens, Thus till the situation has not become alarming and the Govt. was not compelled to impose the emergency, the farmer of the constitution have neither given any heed for the insertion of the chapter of fundamental duties and directive policies for the uplift of the poor worker, children and other disabled person. It is certainly a matter of grade disappointment that till date these fundamental duties and directive principles of state policy have still not been enforce as that of the fundamental rights of the citizens, The country may be ruled down by functioning anarchy and oligarchy, but the prosperity, integrity and solidarity of the nation is impossible without the enforcement of the duties assigned to its citizens”.

12.                      That the Constitution (Forty Fourth amendment) Act, 1978 has provided another directive principle under Article 38(1) & (2) that the state shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting a social order and to strive to minimize inequalities in income and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status facilities and opportunities not only amongst individuals, but also amongst groups engaged in different vocations.

13.                  Hon’ble Supreme court has taken into account two spheres of dimensions to the right of personal liberty against the sovereign power exercising its functioning with the police power and restrictions imposing procedural safeguard in order to provide the public safety having invasion of individual privacy as susceptible to abuse. The custodian violence and torture by the police adopting third degree of interrogation and other agencies have been deemed to be violative of article 21 and article 22 of the constitution of India. It has been held that the importance of affirmed rights to deter breaches by the violence, torture and even death in police lock up strikes a blow of rule of law. The police who is supposed to provide the protection of citizens is committing such crime under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station of lock ups in which victim is being totally helpless. Torture of human being by another human beings is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the "strong over the weak" by sufferings. These are a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilization takes a step backward. Universal declaration of human rights in 1948 in reference to article 5 stipulates, "no one shall be subjected to be tortured or to be cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The constitutional guarantee provided in article 20 (3) provides that of a person excused of an offence cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Article 22 (2) provides that the person arrested or detained in the custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24-hour of such arrest excluding the time necessary for journey. The accused shall be informed of the ground of such arrest and shall not been denied that right to concern and defend himself by legal practitioner of his choice. The personal liberties is protected under article 21 except according to the procedure established by law. Thus personal liberty is a sacred and cherished right under the constitution (UBI JUS IBI REMIDIUM).

No comments:

Post a Comment