1. Special leave petition challenging a High Court order regarding an inquiry into the use of army assistance for executing an arrest warrant. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1216
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., S.P. BHARUCHA, J.
(Record of Proceedings)
UNION OF INDIA, OTHERS Petitioners;
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR MODI, OTHERS Respondents.
SLPs (C) Nos. 17144-17145 of 1997
Decided on September 11,1997
In public interest litigation, the court may appoint an amicus curiae to represent respondents with identical interests instead of issuing individual notices. Additionally, petitioners must clearly specify their grievances and the exact portions of the impugned order being challenged in a special leave petition.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Special Leave Petition - Requirement to clearly state grievances - Petitioner must clearly bring out the real grievance and indicate the specific portions of the lower court's order against which the grievance is held - Amendment of petition directed where such details are missing. (Para 1)
(B) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Notice to respondents - In matters of public interest where respondents have identical interests, it is unnecessary to issue notice to all individual respondents - Court may appoint an amicus curiae to represent the interests of such respondents. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging a direction given by a lower court pertaining to an inquiry into the manner in which military assistance was sought for the execution of an arrest warrant. Upon review, the court observed that the petition did not clearly state the real grievance nor did it specify the portions of the lower court's order being challenged.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petition required amendment to clearly specify the grievances. Furthermore, since the matter was a public interest litigation and the respondents shared identical interests, the court determined that issuing notice to all individual respondents was unnecessary.
Issues: Whether the petition sufficiently identified the grievances against the lower court's order and whether notice must be issued to all respondents in a public interest litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: A petitioner in a special leave petition must clearly articulate the grievances and specify the exact portions of the impugned order being challenged. In public interest litigation, the court may appoint an amicus curiae to represent respondents with identical interests to streamline proceedings instead of issuing individual notices.
Result: Petition ordered to be amended; amicus curiae appointed; notice issued to select respondents.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Submission that the core grievance relates to the High Court's direction concerning an inquiry into the use of army assistance for executing an arrest warrant. (Para 1 )
3. The petition failed to clearly articulate the grievance or specify the challenged portions of the High Court order; in PILs, identical interests may preclude individual notices. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. In public interest litigation, where respondents share identical interests, the court may dispense with individual notices and appoint an amicus curiae to represent those interests. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Petition to be amended; notice issued to select respondents; amicus curiae appointed to represent individual respondents. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
6. When is a petition considered insufficient for the court to proceed with a grievance?
A petition is insufficient when the real grievance is not brought out clearly and the specific portions of the lower court's order being challenged are not indicated. (Para 1 )
7. How does the court handle multiple respondents with identical interests in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
In PIL matters, the court may determine it unnecessary to issue notice to all respondents or permit them to continue as separate parties if they share identical interests in the public interest. (Para 2 )
8. What is the effect of appointing an amicus curiae to represent multiple respondents in a PIL?
The appointment of an amicus curiae to represent parties with identical interests may result in those individual respondents having no additional or distinct right of appearance in the matter. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Learned Attorney General submits that the real grievance in this petition is against the direction given by the High Court in the order dated 29-8-1997 pertaining to the inquiry into the manner in which the assistance of the army was sought for execution of the warrant of arrest against Shri Laloo Yadav. We find that in the special leave petition, the real grievance of the petitioner has not been brought out clearly and the specific portions of the High Courts order dated 29-8-1997 have not been indicated against which the petitioner has the grievance. This be done by amending the petition within four days.
2. In a matter of this kind, which is a PIL matter, it is unnecessary to issue notice to all the respondents and to permit all the individuals shown as respondents (writ petitioners in the High Court) to continue as separate parties in the matter. In view of the fact that Shri Shanti Bhushan appears for one of these respondents (Respondent 11) and that the remaining writ petitioners/respondents have identical interest, which in substance is a matter of public interest, we do not direct issue of notice to the others.
3. We now request Shri Shanti Bhushan to appear as amicus curiae in this matter in this Court and, therefore, none of the original writ petitioners/individual respondents in the special leave petition have any additional or distinct right of appearance in the matter. Shri Gopal Singh is requested to assist Shri Shanti Bhushan. We make this direction in consonance with the procedure adopted in other similar matters in this Court.
4. Issue notice only to Respondents 5 to 8 and 14 to 19.
