Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 427
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. B. Pattanaik, K. Ramaswamy
MOBINA BEGUM/INDIAN ASSN. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL AREAS, PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
WPs (C) Nos. 91 and 92 of 1996,
decided on February 20, 1996.
Courts may decline to exercise their power under Article 32 of the Constitution if there is a lack of acceptable evidence and foundation in the pleadings for the relief sought.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Legality of decision to wind up Srikrishna Commission - Court declines exercise of power under Article 32 of the Constitution
Fact of the Case:
The case concerned the legality of the decision of the Government of Maharashtra in winding up the Srikrishna Commission and seeking directions for reconstitution of the Commission and completion of the inquiry, as well as payment of compensation to victims of the aftermath of the Ayodhya incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the High Court of Bombay was already seized of the matter, it would be appropriate for the High Court to deal with the issue according to law. The court also declined to entertain the writ petitions under Article 32 due to lack of acceptable evidence and foundation in the pleadings.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of winding up the Srikrishna Commission and the payment of compensation to victims of the Ayodhya incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court declined to exercise its power under Article 32 of the Constitution due to the lack of acceptable evidence and foundation in the pleadings for the payment of compensation to the victims.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed by the court.
ORDER
1. Writ Petition (C) No. 92 of 1996 and part of the prayer in Writ Petition (C) No. 91 concern the legality of the decision of the Government of Maharashtra in winding up the Srikrishna Commission.
2. The direction sought for is to the State Government of Maharashtra to reconstitute the Commission and to complete the inquiry from the stage at which it was wound up and also for the preservation of the material evidence and the record placed before the Srikrishna Commission. In view of the undisputed position that the High Court of Bombay was already seized of the matter, it would be appropriate that the High Court would deal with the matter according to law. Under those circumstances, it would not be desirable for this Court to entertain the writ petitions under Article 32 in that behalf.
3. Yet another part of the relief sought for in Writ Petition No. 91 of 1996 is for directions to the various Governments for payment of compensation to the unspecified number of victims of the aftermath of the Ayodhya incident who had suffered injuries or death in some cases. The number has been mentioned in the writ petition. It is also sought to rely upon paper reports on the basis of which the petitioner has arrived at the number and the White Paper statement said to have been made by the Government of India in which promise to issue direction to the State Governments for payment of compensation to the victims was made and their alleged of dereliction of duty said to have been faulted by the State Government. No foundation is laid in the pleadings nor any finding in support thereof by any commission identifying the victims and the tortuous vicarious liability of the State nor even evidence placed on record in that behalf. Paper reports are opinions of the author which is not evidence. In the nature of things, unless there is acceptable evidence placed before the Court, it would be difficult for this Court to cause investigation done in the case. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to decline exercise of the power under Article 32 of the Constitution.
4. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Court Master
