The Supreme Court has observed that a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be rejeceted merely on the technical shortcomings such as delay as it airs violation of Fundamental Rights.
The Bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy quashed the notification issued by Bihar Government that approved issuance of Scheduled Tribe Caste certificate to Lohar community noting that the delay by itself cannot be used as a weapon to Veto an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake.
The petitioners had approached the Court challenging the notification issued by Bihar Government in 2016 with contention that the Lohar Community in Bihar isn't entitled to be treated as members of the Scheduled Tribe. It was also submitted that, relying upon these certificates which were issued, proceedings have been initiated against them under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventions of Atrocities Act), 1989. The State, in response raised a technical objection that there is a delay of about five years in seeking protection under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Observations
The Court at the outset noted that in a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self-restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case.
A person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge
The Court in dealt with the preliminary objection by the State, namely, that the petitioners have approached this Court with considerable delay and observed:
"A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. However, we may only indicate, ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge."
The Court cited Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2014 Latest Caselaw 792 SC to observe that even if the peitioner came with some delay, the Court cannot dismiss the appeal on this ground.
"delay by itself cannot be used as a weapon to Veto an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake."
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments