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

1998 Supreme(AP) 62

P.VENKATRAMA REDDY, UMESH C.BANERJEE
K. Prabhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is of widest possible amplitude. Public Interest Litigation, the seeds of which were sown in United States more than a century ago has had its due impact in Indian jurisprudence as well, though, however much later and this phenomenon from time to time has had judicial recognition throughout the country and consequently a step forward to sub-serve the ends of justice. The concept of justice ought to be the predominant factor in judicial approach and the law courts in order to do so have been dealing with matters in a manner and in accordance with the doctrine of natural justice to achieve this end. The usual adversorial litigation is a part of our judicial system but the advent of this phenomenon has been received with wide acclamation throughout the country and it is on this count that the Supreme Court right from the beginning however has sounded a caution to the effect that it may not be the act of a busy body or to satisfy individualistic ego or other egoistic social complication. Individual disputes ought not to gain momentum in a Court of law under the coverage









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