Back
High Court Of Delhi
PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATICRIGHTS - Appellant
Versus
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS - Respondent
Civil Writ 2697 of 1984
Decided On : 03/11/1985
Writ petition filed by two organizations namely People Union for Democratic Rights and People Union for Civil Liberties seeking appointment of a Commission of Enquiry to carry out an investigation into the role of the police and political interference in the recent carnage as done in public interest litigation cases. Petitioners also sought directions to CBI or the Crime Branch to investigate into the role of the police and politicians in the recent carnage and submit its report to this Hon'ble Court.
Fact of the Case:
Following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31st October, 1984, violence, arson, loot and murder was unleashed in the Union Territory of Delhi. The primary targets were those belonging to the Sikh community. The sikhs, who have always protected their motherland whenever the occasion had arisen, had to seek protection themselves. Some of them had to leave the houses and take shelter is refugee camps or with friends in the neighbourhood and at other places. Houses of some of them were burnt after they had been looted. While the nation was in mourning over the tragic assessination of the Prime Minister the vulttures of the society were making merry.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the events which took place in Delhi between 31st October and 23rd November, 1934 are such as must shock the conscience of the Court and therefore this Court, in public interest, must act and protect the rights of the victims from the action and/or inaction of the respondents. The Court also held that the greater the power with the Court the greater has to be the judicial discretion and restraint. Though the Courts has the power to give directions to the Executive, the Court, however, is ill-equipped to run the administration The power should therefore be exercised by the Court only where effective relief can be granted to the people and which relief would not otherwise have granted but for the Court’s intervention.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court has the jurisdiction to direct the Government to exercise its powers under section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiries Act to set up a Commission of Enquiry? 2. Whether the Court has the power, and the Jurisdiction, to appoint a Commissioner to make such enquiries as the Court may direct? 3. Whether the Court can issue directions to the Executive Magistrates to take security for keeping peace from the people named by the survivors in the said report of the petitioners and the report of the Delhi University teachers and in the statements and affidavits of the survivors? 4. Whether the Court can issue directions for identification of the people named by the survivors? 5. Whether the Court can issue directions that the people so identified should be debarred from going to those areas for at least six months so that an atmosphere of security and trust is created?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that no writ or direction can be issued to the Government to exercise its powers under Section 3 of the said Act. 2. The Court held that the Court has the jurisdiction to anpoint such a Commissioner even though it has no power to direct the Government to a Commission of the Enquiry under Section 3 of the said Act. 3. The Court held that the Court can issue directions to the Executive Magistrates to take security for keeping peace from the people named by the survivors in the said report of the petitioners and the report of the Delhi University teachers and in the statements and affidavits of the survivors. 4. The Court held that the Court can issue directions for identification of the people named by the survivors. 5. The Court held that the Court can issue directions that the people so identified should be debarred from going to those areas for at least six months so that an atmosphere of security and trust is created.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) FOLLOWING English American decisions, our Supreme Court has, of late admitted excaptions from the strict rules relating to locus; standi and the like in the case of a class of litigations which have acquired classification known as "public interest litigation", that is. where the public in general are interested in the enforcement of fundamental rights and other statutory rights.
( 2 ) THE litigation may be initiated by public spirited organization on behalf of persons belonging to socially and economically weaker sections complaining of violation of their human rights.
( 3 class=pno>>3 ) PRESENT writ petition has also been filed by two such organizations namely. People Union for Democratic Rights, through its Secretary, Dr. Sudesh Vaid ana Peoples Union for Civill Liberties.
( 4 ) TODAY it is perhaps common place to observe that as a result of a series of judicial decisions since about 1950 both in the Supreme Court and the High Courts in India, House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in England, there has been a dramatic and a radical change in the scope of the judicial review. That change has been described-by no means critically- as an upsurge of judicial activism. Historically the use of the old prerogative writs of certiorari prohibition and mandamus are well known but the use of those writs have come to be used for the purpose of controlling every action of the Executive.
( 5 ) IN this case, we ire not concerned with that Bench of judicial review which is concerned with the control of interior courts or tribunals. But we are vitally concerned with the branch of judicial review which is concerned with the contral of executive action or inaction. This Branch of administrative law has evolved on a case by case basis and the process is still continuing. But the history of development of law of writs in India shows that each generation of Judges has an enormous power of. shaping its own law. (See : Speech of Lord Roskil in the Council of Civil Service Unions and others and Minister for the Civil Service, reported as 198. 4 (3) Weekly Law Reports Page 1174. (l ). (The Weekly Law Reports 7th December, 1984j.
( 6 ) THE petitioners organizations claimed themselves to be non-political organizations concerned with the protection of fiindamemal rights of the people as guaranteed to them under the Indian Constitution. These organizations claim to have carried out investigatons by sending "fact Finding Teams" for finding. out facts resulting in the recent ghastly" crimes which were perpetrated during the recent riots in Delhi.
( 7 ) THE petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation itself appears to have been drafted on the instructions of these organizations.
( 8 ) THE petition is accompanied by a report of a Joint Inquiry published under the banner of People s Union fop. Democratic Rights anil People s Union for Civil Liberties. The report purports to cover the Causes and Impact of the riots in Delhi from 31st October to 10th November, 1984. The petition is also accompanied by an article by Mr. K. F. Rustamji, a retired senior Police Officer and various other documents. The petition was filed ill this Court on or about 26th November, 1984. The petition was supported by an affidavit of Mr. Suresh Vaid.
( 9 ) BEFORE Rules was issued in the petition, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of petitioner No. I, namely. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights. This affidavit was filed on or about 14th Dcember, 19s4. It was stated in this affidavit that In view of directions of the Court dated 4th December, 1984, the Peoples Unioli for Democratic Rights have given relevant affidavits and statements of persons affected by riots in the area of Kalyan Puri and Sultan puri police stations so that action may be taken on those affidavits and statements.
( 10 ) IT was further stated in this affidavit that subsequently the petitioners organ
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
