SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 628

N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Manish Tewari, Abhimanyu Tewari, Kapil Sibal, Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., Raghav Tankha, Rupali Samuel, Shyam Divan, Rahul Narayan, Samiksha Godiyal, Ria Singh Sawhney, Udayaditya Banerjee, Govind Manoharan, Sugandha Yadav, Dinesh Dwivedi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Arvind P. Datar, Eklavya Dwivedi, Vrinda Bhandari, Prateek Dvivedi, Prateek K Chadha, Nishant Singh, Mihir Naniwadekar, Rahul Unnikrishnan, Rangoli Seth, Yash Sinha, Tanmay Singh, Abhinav S., Kapil Sibal, C.U. Singh, Shadan Farasat, Nizam Pasha, Shourya Dasgupta, Bharat Gupta, Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitionerinperson Pooja Rohatgi, Puneet Sheoran, Rajesh Udit Singh, Resmitha R. Chandran, Roopanshu Pratap Singh, Mishra Saurabh, Petitionerinperson Colin Gonsalves, Siddharth Seem, Shiyas KR., Satya Mitra, Amiy Shukla, Mishi Chaudhary, Prasanth Sugathan, Kushagra Sinha, Advocates
For Respondent(s) Gurmeet Singh Makker, Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, For M/s.PLR Chambers And Co., Barun Sinha, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Sushant Kr. Sarkar, Rishabh Jain, Arti Dvivedi, Petitionerinperson Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K. Nayak, Shaurya Sahay, G. Prakash, Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, Advocates

ORDER :

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

    “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

    George Orwell, 1984

1. The present batch of Writ Petitions raise an Orwellian concern, about the alleged possibility of utilizing modern technology to hear what you hear, see what you see and to know what you do. In this context, this Court is called upon to examine an allegation of the use of such a technology, its utility, need and alleged abuse. We make it clear that our effort is to uphold the constitutional aspirations and rule of law, without allowing ourselves to be consumed in the political rhetoric. This Court has always been conscious of not entering the political thicket. However, at the same time, it has never cowered from protecting all from the abuses of fundamental rights. All that we would like to observe in this regard is a reiteration of what had already been said by this Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (Opinion of Justice Khanna) AIR 1973 SC 1461:

    “1535…. Judicial review is not intended to create what is sometimes called judicial oligarchy, the aristrocracy (sic) of the robe, covert legislation, or Judge-made law. The proper

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
          whatsapp-icon Back to top