Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • RESPONDENT ISSUE 01 Edit PDF

    Uploaded by

    Khizer Khan
    17 views1 page
    1. The respondent argues that the writ petition is not maintainable as there has been no violation of fundamental rights in this case. Additionally, the alternative remedy has not been exhausted. 2. Specifically, the respondent contends that writ petitions can only be filed under Article 32 if a fundamental right has been violated. However, in this case the government issued regulations in the public interest during a pandemic, so no rights have been violated. 3. Further, the respondent submits that the alternative remedy of approaching lower courts has not been exhausted, making the writ petition premature. Unless the alternative remedy is futile or cannot provide quick relief, the Supreme Court should not intervene.

    Original Description:

    Law

    Original Title

    RESPONDENT ISSUE 01 edit.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The respondent argues that the writ petition is not maintainable as there has been no violation of fundamental rights in this case. Additionally, the alternative remedy has not been exhausted. 2. Specifically, the respondent contends that writ petitions can only be filed under Article 32 if a fundamental right has been violated. However, in this case the government issued regulations in the public interest during a pandemic, so no rights have been violated. 3. Further, the respondent submits that the alternative remedy of approaching lower courts has not been exhausted, making the writ petition premature. Unless the alternative remedy is futile or cannot provide quick relief, the Supreme Court should not intervene.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views1 page

    RESPONDENT ISSUE 01 Edit PDF

    Uploaded by

    Khizer Khan
    1. The respondent argues that the writ petition is not maintainable as there has been no violation of fundamental rights in this case. Additionally, the alternative remedy has not been exhausted. 2. Specifically, the respondent contends that writ petitions can only be filed under Article 32 if a fundamental right has been violated. However, in this case the government issued regulations in the public interest during a pandemic, so no rights have been violated. 3. Further, the respondent submits that the alternative remedy of approaching lower courts has not been exhausted, making the writ petition premature. Unless the alternative remedy is futile or cannot provide quick relief, the Supreme Court should not intervene.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    01.

    WHETHERTHEPILFI
    LEDBYTHERETALERSASSOCI
    ATI
    ONOFINDUSI
    NDUSUNDER
    ARTICLE32OFTHECONSTI
    TTUTI
    ONOFINDUSISMAI
    NTAI
    NABLE?

    Ther espondent
    scontendst
    hatther
    ehasbeennov iolati
    onoffundament alr
    ight
    sinthe
    presentcasemoreover,t
    hepeti
    ti
    onhasbeenf i
    l
    edpremat urel
    y.Apetit
    ioncanbef i
    l
    edunder
    Art.
    32oft heconst
    it
    uti
    ononl
    ywhent hefundament
    al r
    ightisvi
    ol
    ated.Also,t
    healter
    nati
    ve
    remedyhasnotbeenexhaus t
    ed.Thus,t
    hewr i
    tpet
    it
    ionisnotmai nt
    ainable.

    1
    .1

    I
    tishumbl ys ubmittedbyt heRes pondentthatwr i
    tsarewr i
    tt
    enor dersissuedbyt heSupr eme
    Cour toraHi ghtCour tdirecti
    ngconsti
    tut
    ional remedi esforIndusci ti
    zenswhohav ehadt hei
    r
    fundament alri
    ghtsv i
    olated.Art.
    32oftheIndi ancons ti
    tutiondealswi thconsti
    tuti
    onalremedi es
    thatanI ndianci t
    izencans eekfr
    omt heSupr emeCour tofIndiaandt heHi ghCour tofIndiaif
    hisorherf undament alrightshavebeenv iolated.Butt hereisnov i
    ol
    ationoffundament al
    ri
    ghtsi nthiscas ebecaus ethegovernmenthasi ssuedr egulati
    oni ntheinter
    es tofpubli
    c,
    wher eint heinterestoft hepubli
    catlargeisi nques t
    iont henthei ndivi
    dualsri
    ghtswillbel ess
    cons i
    der ed.Pandemi cissuchahav occreat i
    ngdi seas easitwass preadingli
    kef i
    re.
    Ins uch
    sit
    uationi twasneces saryforgovernmentt oi s
    s uequickr egulat
    ionst ocontrolpubli
    catl arge.
    Sor egulat i
    onisv ali
    d.Cour thasnojuri
    sdi
    ction. Nor i
    ghtunderPar tII
    Iofthecons ti
    tut
    ionhas
    notbeenv i
    olated.

    1
    .2WHETHERTHEPRESENTWRI
    TPETI
    TIONHASFI
    LEDPREMATURLY.

    Therespondentss ubmit
    st hattheCour thasheldthatonlyift
    hereisavi
    olati
    onof
    FundamentalRightscanits t
    epi nundertheJuri
    s dict
    ionofArt.
    32.
    (RomeshThaparvUOI ,
    AIR
    1950SC1 24)thepet i
    ti
    onerisr ai
    si
    ngamer escholarlyobj
    ecti
    on,wit
    houtlocusst
    andi,
    but
    wherenoonehav ebeenr estr
    ictedbyt heregul
    ationimposedbyt hegovernmenthencet
    here
    i
    snov i
    olat
    ionofrighthence,t hepetit
    ionercannots eektheremedy .

    1
    .3ALTERNATI
    VEREMEDYHASNOTBEENEXHAUSED

    TheHon’
    bl
    eCour
    tisenought
    oheart
    hispar
    ti
    cul
    arcas
    ebyt
    hev
    irt
    ueof(
    L.Chandr
    akumarv
    UIOAI
    R

    1997 SC1 125al ternat i


    veremedyi sabarunl essther ewascompl etelackofjurisdictioninthe
    off
    icerorauthor i
    tytoact i
    onimpunged. (A.V.
    Venkat eshwaravR.S.Wadhwani AIR1 961SC
    1906)howev er ,t
    heexi s
    tenceofacompet entbodyt oheart hi
    spar t
    icul
    arcas eques ti
    onthe
    maintai
    nabil
    it
    yoft hewr itpeti
    ti
    onf i
    l
    ed.Itwashel dt hisHon’bl
    eapexCour tinAs st.
    Col lect
    orof
    CentralExci
    s ev .JainsonHos i
    eryAIR1 979SC1 889wher ethereI al
    ternati
    ves t
    atut ory
    remedycour ts houldnoti nterf
    ereunles sthealternativer
    emedyi stoodi l
    atoryorcannotgr ant
    quickrel
    ief
    .Thust her espondentshumbl ysubmi tthatthepresentwr i
    tpetit
    ionisnot
    maintai
    nableont hegr oundt hatalt
    ernativeremedyhasnotbeenexhaus ted.Thus ,the
    respondentss ubmi tthatthepr esentwr i
    tpetiti
    onisnotmai ntai
    nablef ort
    heaf ores aidreasons.

    You might also like