Back
N.ARUMUGHAM, RANJANA DESAI
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties and others – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others – Respondent
N. ARUMUGHAM, J.:---These three writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the Mandamus against the respondents who are the State of Maharashtra, the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, Mumbai, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and other officials working under them and Coroner of Mumbai, (i) directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish the particulars regarding the number of persons killed in last one year in police encounters, their names, addresses, the circumstances in which these persons are killed, the enquiries, if any, conducted with respect to the said killings and any other relevant information and the action taken, if any, by them: (ii) directing the respondent No. 1 to register offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant enactments against the Police Officers, if found prima facie responsible for the violation of the fundamental rights and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant enactments; (iii) directing the 4th respondent, viz. the Coroner of Mumbai, to submit a detailed report and the details of actions taken by him under the provisions of the Coroners Act, 187
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based solely on the provided excerpts. The first case mentions a case being distinguishable and not applicable, but does not suggest it has been overruled or invalidated. The second case discusses principles related to custodial violence and fundamental rights but does not reference any subsequent treatment that would suggest it has been overruled or discredited.
Followed/Distinguished:
The first case (Fulchand Baburao Gedam, Nagpur VS Lokmat Newspapers Ltd. , Nagpur through its Managing Director - 2007 0 Supreme(Bom) 1303) indicates a distinction was made from the cases Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others, and Sarva Shramik Sangh. It states that certain cases are distinguishable and cannot be applied to the current case, implying that the case law is still considered relevant but distinguished on facts. This suggests a treatment of "distinguished" rather than overruled or criticized.
Cited for legal principles:
The second case (D. K. Basu: Ashok K. Johari VS State Of W. B. : State Of U. P. - 1996 8 Supreme 581) elaborates on custodial violence and fundamental rights, emphasizing the importance of legal procedures and remedies. There is no indication that this case has been overruled or criticized; rather, it appears to be cited for its legal principles, suggesting it remains good law.
No explicit treatment patterns such as "criticized," "questioned," "overruled," or "reversed" are evident from the provided excerpts. The language used indicates that the cases are being distinguished or cited for principles, not invalidated.
Both cases lack explicit references to subsequent treatment such as overruled, reversed, or criticized. Without additional context or case citations indicating later judicial treatment, their current standing remains uncertain. The absence of such references in the provided snippets makes it difficult to definitively categorize them as overruled or bad law.
The phrase "supra" in the first case suggests it is citing earlier case law, but does not provide information about subsequent judicial treatment.
The second case, being a statement on fundamental rights and custodial violence, is a legal principle that may have been upheld or reinforced in later judgments, but such treatment is not indicated here.
In summary, based solely on the provided excerpts, both cases appear to be still relevant and unoverruled, but without explicit references, their treatment status remains uncertain.
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
