1988 Supreme(AP) 2

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.BHASKARAN, K.RAMASWAMY, M.N.RAO, V.BHASKARA RAO, VENKATARAMA REDDY
D.Satyanarayana - Appellant
Versus
N.T.Rama Rao - Respondent
W.P.Nos. 12426 & 12805/1987
Decided On : 01-02-88
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. S. Ramchandra Rao,Ramjeth Mafani, M.P. Chandra Mouli,Sri KParasaran

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226 - Locus-standi - Specific allegation against Chief Minister alleging abuse of power and the State Government s inaction High Court has power to entertain the Writ Petition and decide the specific allegations.

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - High Court has power to take up the matter and decide specific issue - Duty of the High Court in Public Interest Litigation-Explained.

       High Court can lend the services of the Attorney-General or an eminent Advocate as Amicus curiae to assist the court on a Public Interest Litigation.

       HELD : The contours of public interest litigation are basically different from adversorial litigation. In the latter the holder of legal rights alone is entitled to bring forth the action in which event he must conform to the strict rules of pleadings, proof and prayer for relief. In adversorial litigation, the person moving the Court for relief must establish at the thresh-hold stage that he is a holder of right under the relevant laws: Only then his standing to litigate and the sufficiency of his interest for seeking adjudication will be accepted. If a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class or group of persons, by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal rights, and if such person or determinate class of persons by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can move the Court on their behalf.

       For the purpose of locus standi what really relevant is the substance of the breaches of law or the constitution complained of, not the antecedents or the status of the person who conveys the information to the Court. While protecting its jurisdiction, authority and time from abuse of process, the High Court at the same time should not abdicate its role as the sentinal qui vive of the rights and liberties of the citizens, as rightly pointed out by the learned Attorney General. The accountability of the executive to the people through the judiciary cannot be set at naught by any self-induced doubts regarding the jurisdiction of the Court or the propriety of the Court to entertain matters raising genuine questions of annihilation of constitutional values by the executive. When large scale violations of abuse of power by the first respondent and inaction of the governmental machinery are alleged by the petitioner with sufficient material particulars, we cannot throw out the writ petitions on the untenable ground of locus.

       In public interest litigation, it is the duty of all the parties to help the Court to the best of their ability in ascertaining the truth and for moulding the appropriate relief. The adversorial procedure does not come into play in matters of public interest litigation either under Article 32 of 226 of the Constitution of India.

       The role of the Court in this regard is creative rather than passive; and it assumes a more positive attitude in determining the facts.

       In public interest litigation, as already observed by us, the rigour of the procedural law breaks down. If issues are clearly, specifically and pointedly formulated, this Court would certainly enquire into them.

       If the acts alleged are in violation of the Rule of law or the provisions of the Constitution, or any statutory law, it is no answer to say that because it is a political Question it should not be adjudicated.

       Merely because a question has a political complexion, that by itself is no [Hound why the Court should shrink from reforming its duty under the Constitution if it raises an issue of constitutional determination. Every constitutional question concerns the allocation and exercise of governmental power and no constitutional question can, therefore fail to be political. A constitution is a matter of purest politics, a structure of power as pointed out by Charles Black in "perspectives in Constitutional Law".

       "Constitutional Law" symbolizes an intersection of law and politics, wherein issues of a political power are acted on by persons trained in the legal tradition, working in judicial institutions, following the procedures of law thinking as lawyers think".

       "It will, therefore, be seen that merely because a question has a political colour, the Court cannot fold its hands in despair and declare "Judicial hands off". So long as a question arises whether an authority under the Constitution has acted within the limits of its power or exceeded it, it can certainly be decided by the Court. Indeed it would be its constitutional obligation to do so. It is necessary to assert in the clearest terms, particularly in the context of recent history, that the Constitution is Supreme Lex, the paramount law of the land, and there is no department or branch of Government above or beyond it. Every organ of Government, be it the executive or the legislature or the judiciary, derives its authority from the Constitution and it has to act within the limits of its authority. No one howsoever highly placed and no authority howsoever lofty can claim that it shall be the sole judge of the extent of its power under the Constitution or whether its action is within the confines of such power laid down by the Constitution. This Court is the ultimate interpretor of the Constitution and to this Court is assigned the delicate task of determining what is the power conferred on each branch of Government, whether it is limited, and if so, what the limits are and whether any action of that branch transgresses such limits. It is for the High Court to uphold the constitutional values and to enforce the constitutional limitations. "The test regarding the determination of what constitutes political question as laid down in BAKER V CARR (2) was approvingly referred to by Bhagwati, J. (as he then was , in the aforesaid case. The American doctrine regarding the adjudication of political questions was accepted by Venkatramaiah, J., in his separate judgment. In V.R. SREERAMA RAO V. TELUr,U DESAM, A POLITICAL PARTY AND ANOTHER (13), the technicalities of locus did not stand in the way of the High Court from inquiring into the plea raised by the president of a political party called "Sarvodaya Conqress" opposing the grant of election symbol to Telugu Desam Party on the ground that it "preached chauvinism, propagates sessionist tendencies". Our learned brother, P.A. Choudary, J., very realistically observed: "Considering the fact that the issues raised by the writ petitioner are of paramount public importance to the democratic functioning of our society and taking into account the recent trends of law funnelled by several court decisions freely upholding the right to sue as inhering even in those whose proprietary rights or personal interests are not directly affected, I reject the preliminary objection of Sri N. T. Rama Rao to the maintainability of this writ petition.

       The writ petitioner claims to be the president of a political party called "Sarvodaya Congress" and it undoubtedly appears to me that he is interested in a clean public life. He is not a mere interloper".

       In our constitutional set up there are no two classes of people-one privileged and the other not so privileged.

       The petitioner has locus standi: and the issues raised by and large are justiciable, and consequently, the writ petitions cannot be rejected on the threshold issue of locus standi.

       The High Court would not be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to appoint a Commission to go into the charges levelled against the first and the second respondents,

       It is the right and the duty of the High Court to see that ends of justice should not be allowed to be frusteated, but the High Court should exercise its discretion in moulding the relief in such manner as would meet the situation, particularly in view of the fact that the comprehensive provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution empower the High Court to issue orders "for any other purpose", apart from writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part /II.

       In India, the Attorney-General enjoys a unique and independent position. Distinguished men of outstanding eminence in the legal field are requested by the Union to occupy the high office of Attorney-General. Apart from discharging duties of a legal character assigned to him by the Union of India under Article 76 (2) of the Constitution, his services are requested by the Supreme Court of India under Article 143 of the Constitution when the President of India seeks the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact arising in a matter of public importance. Under Article 226, there is no fetter on the power of this Court to request the Attorney-General or any eminent counsel to appear as amicus curiae.