Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Kishan Chand Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 523 of 2024
Decided On : 27-09-2024
[JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION] - [TRIBUNALS AND DATA MANAGEMENT] - [The court ruled that the request to incorporate all Tribunals into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) cannot be granted as it is part of a distinct administrative project under the E-Courts Project, allowing the petitioner to seek other remedies or approach the Central Government.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the incorporation of all Tribunals into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NJDG is part of a separate administrative project and thus could not issue the direction sought by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the court can direct the incorporation of all Tribunals into the NJDG as requested by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the NJDG is a distinct project sanctioned by the Government of India, and therefore, the direction sought by the petitioner was not permissible.
Result: The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to pursue other remedies or approach the Central Government.
ORDER
1 A similar petition instituted by the petitioner [Writ Petition (Civil) No 453 of 2024] has been disposed of on 24 July 2024 by this Court in terms of the following order:
“1 The direction sought in the Public Interest Litigation for the Union of India to incorporate all Tribunals into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) cannot be issued as it stands. The NJDG is a part of the E-Courts Project which is a distinct administrative project in terms of the sanction issued by the Government of India.
2 The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to pursue any other remedies which he has in that regard.
3 The petitioner would be also at liberty to move the Central Government at an appropriate level.
4 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
5 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
2 In view of the above order, we are not inclined to entertain the petition on the same subject. The petition is dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to pursue his proposals before the government.
3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
AI
The court established that the NJDG operates as a separate administrative initiative, limiting the court's ability to mandate its application to all Tribunals.
The NJDG is part of a distinct administrative project, and the court cannot issue directions that conflict with its established framework.
Public interest litigation cannot seek mere implementation of a policy; proper legal channels must address specific violations of the policy instead.
The High Court held that litigants must approach Administrative Tribunals first for recruitment-related matters, as exclusive jurisdiction was conferred under the Administrative Tribunals Act, even f....
The Court emphasizes the need for genuine public interest in Public Interest Litigation and dismisses frivolous PILs lacking public interest.
Public interest litigation must not be driven by personal interests; it should address genuine social issues, with courts vigilant against misuse for private gain.
The National Green Tribunal must comply with principles of natural justice, ensuring parties have the opportunity to present their case before any adverse decisions are made.
Public Interest Litigation should be used for redressal of genuine public wrong or injury, and not for personal gain or publicity oriented motives.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
