Petitioner case laws

Article 139 A(1)

Where cases involving the same or substantially the same or substantially the same questions of law
are pending before the supreme court and one or more high courts or before two or more high
courts and the supreme court is satisfied on its own motion or on an application made by the
attorney general of india or by a party to any such case that such questions are substantial question
of general importance, the supreme court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the high
court or high courts and dispose of all the cases itself

Provided that the supreme court may after determining the said questions of law return any case so
withdrawn together with a copy of its judgement on such questions to the high court from which the
case has been withdrawn, and the High court shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case
in conformity with such judgement.

International Finance Corporation V Bihar Industrial Development Corporation, (2005) 10 SCC 179,
it was held that all the proceedings of a case will be transferred to the Supreme Court if an issue
being decided between the parties in a High Court is also the subject matter of a case between the
same parties in the Supreme Court

Petition maintainable as there exists violation of fundamental rights

1. National council for civil liberties v. UOI,(2007) 6 SCC 506

We are also of the view that public interest litigation may be entertained when an issue of great
public importance is involved, but not to settle private scores as was held in Dattaraj Nathuji
Thawares case. Furthermore, in an application under article 32 of the constitution, there must be an
element of infraction of one or the other fundamental rights contained in part 3 of the constitution

Pil can be filed by the ngo

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. In this case it was held that any member of the public or social action
group acting bonafide can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts or the Supreme Court
seeking redressal against violation of a legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or
economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court. By this judgment PIL became a potent
weapon for the enforcement of public duties where executed in action or misdeed resulted in public
injury. And as a result any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action groups can now
approach the apex court of the country seeking legal remedies in all cases where the interests of
general public or a section of public are at stake.

Exemption of proving the locus standi, when there exists public interest

2. DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AIR 2005

SC 540.
The relaxation of the principle of locus standi has significantly helped in protection of
fundamental rights of citizens effectively which otherwise would have been extremely difficult.
The objective of such relaxation and the introduction of public interest litigation was that legal
wrong wherever done or legal right wherever violated must not go unaddressed for lack of
amenities or due to any other disability to approach the court. At the same time, the potential
misuse of this relaxation has to be taken into consideration. The Apex court while realising such
potential noted in one of its judgments that this weapon of public interest litigation should be
used with due care and caution and must not be misused

3. JANATA DAL V. H.S CHOWDHURY AIR 1993 SC 892

It was observed that the strict rule of locus standi which was applicable to private litigation was
relaxed and a broad rule was evolved which gave the right of locus standi to any member of the
public acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in instituting an action for the redressal of
public injury or public wrong
Alternate remedy no ground to bar relief under article 32

The existence of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief under article 226 but is
a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs. Exception to the rule of
exhaustion under article 226 have been laid down by the supreme court, in a division bench
ruling, in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade marks, Mumbai & Ors.(1998) 8
SCC 1,

Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, (2003) 2 SCC 107, wherein the Apex Court
carved out the exceptions thus:

In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may
still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition
seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles
of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or
the vires of an Act is challenged.

Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334
wherein the Apex Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of writ
jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy. The Court observed
thus:

28. The principles of law which emerge are that:

i. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not
only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
ii. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the
restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate
remedy is available to the aggrieved person;
iii. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where:

a. the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right
protected by Part III of the Constitution
b. there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;
c. the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or
d. the vires of a legislation is challenged;
iv. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ
 petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided
by law;
v. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure
for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion; and
vi. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to
decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the
view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction,
such a view would not readily be interfered with.

K. K Kochuni v. State of madras AIR 1959 SC 725 and Romesh Thappar v. State of
Madras

The mere existence of an adequate alternative remedy cannot per se be a good and
sufficient ground for throwing out a petition under article 32 if the existence of a
fundamental right and a breach, actual or threatened, of such right is alleged and is
prima facie established on the petition.

Article 19 1 A

Violation of freedom of speech and expression

Vinod dua v. UOI, 2021 SCC online SC 414
The free press is the fourth institution outside the government as an additional
check on the three official branches executive, legislative and judiciary. The press
serves as a powerful antidote to any abuse of power by government officials and
as a means for keeping the elected officials responsible to the people to whom
they were elected to serve. The supreme court held that criticism of the
government and its policies is not seditious and that the right to free speech and
expression extends to press

Unreasonable restrictions

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124: This landmark case was one of the
first to address the issue of freedom of the press in India. The Supreme Court held that
freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press, should be
protected unless it falls within the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2) of
the Constitution.

Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India 1972 AIR 106: In this case, the Supreme Court
reaffirmed the significance of the freedom of the press as a fundamental right and
emphasized that the press should enjoy autonomy and independence. The court stated
that the freedom of the press includes the right to publish news, views, and opinions,
even if they are critical of the government, as long as they are within the bounds of
responsible journalism.

Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985): This case highlighted the importance
of the freedom of the press as a watchdog of democracy. The Supreme Court declared
that the press has the right to comment and criticize the actions of the government,
including its policies and decisions. The court also stressed that the press plays a crucial
role in exposing corruption and wrongdoing.

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 SCC 632: This case recognized the right to
privacy as an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, including
the freedom of the press. The Supreme Court held that the press can publish private
information only if it is a matter of public concern or the individual involved has
voluntarily become a public figure.

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI 2013 (1) SCC 1: This case reaffirmed the
principle that the press has the right to report and publish information obtained through
investigative journalism. The Supreme Court emphasized that the media has the
responsibility to act as a watchdog and expose wrongdoing, corruption, and illegal
activities, even if it involves breaching confidentiality or privacy.

Right to criticize
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989(2) SCC 574
Everyone has a fundamental right to form his opinionon any issues of general concern .
Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting
expressions. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself. In
democracy, it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song.
Brij Bhushan v. State of delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129
The validity of order imposing pre censorship on an English weekly of delhi, which
directed the editor and publisher of a newspaper to submit for scrutiny, in duplicate,
before the publication, all communal matters, all matters and news and views about
Pakistan’ including photographs, and cartoons on the ground that it was a restriction on
the liberty of the press was struck down by the court.
Article 19 everyone has the right to freedom of opinion anf expression, this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Add Shreya singhal