Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State of Jharkhand VS Shiv Shankar Sharma...
Checking relevance for State of Uttaranchal VS Balwant Singh Chaufal...
Checking relevance for Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. VS State of Orissa...
Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. VS State of Orissa - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 353 : The Supreme Court in People''''s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235, and in subsequent cases such as S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149), Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (AIR 1993 SC 892), and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402, recognized and entertained Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions challenging actions of the State and public authorities, including violations of statutory rules and public duty. The Court held that any member of the public with sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or violation of constitutional or legal provisions, even if no individual right is directly infringed. This includes challenges to rules and procedures governing land acquisition, as seen in the present case where PILs were entertained to challenge the State''''s violation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and its Rules, 1963, particularly regarding non-compliance with Section 5A, Rule 4, and the requirement for public purpose and proper inquiry. The Court emphasized that PIL is not merely adversarial litigation but a mechanism to enforce public duty, protect marginalized groups, and uphold the rule of law, especially when the State''''s actions violate statutory rules and public trust doctrine.Checking relevance for R And M Trust VS Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group...
Checking relevance for Chairman And M. D. , B. P. L. LTD. VS S. P. Gururaja...
Checking relevance for Ishhita Foundation Metro City Thru. Ms. Pragya Singh (Alias Vanshika Singh) VS State Of U. P. Thru. Secy. Dept. Of Energy Lko. ...
Checking relevance for Aman Satya Kachroo Trust VS Union Territory of Jammu and kashmir...
Checking relevance for Aman Satya Kachroo Trust VS Union Territory of J&K...
Checking relevance for Gorang Gupta vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi...
Checking relevance for Shailesh Kumar Mishra VS State of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for C. Sathasivam VS Superintendent of Police...
Checking relevance for Kushum Lata VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Neetu VS State Of Punjab...
Checking relevance for Common Cause (A Regd. Society) VS Union of India and others...
Checking relevance for Board of Control for Cricket in India VS Cricket Association of Bihar...
Board of Control for Cricket in India VS Cricket Association of Bihar - 2015 5 Supreme 705 : The legal documents confirm that the Supreme Court entertained Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed against a rule. Specifically, in the case discussed, the Cricket Association of Bihar filed two successive writ petitions in public interest before the High Court of Bombay, challenging the validity of Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI Regulations. The High Court''''s order dismissing PIL No.107 of 2013 was itself challenged in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which is indicated by the reference to ''''Civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014''''. This demonstrates that the Supreme Court entertained a PIL challenging a rule (Regulation 6.2.4) and ultimately ruled on its validity, finding the amendment to Rule 6.2.4 to be void and ineffective on grounds of conflict of interest and public policy.Checking relevance for P. Seshadri VS S. Mangati Gopal Reddy...
Checking relevance for Avishek Goenka VS Union of India...
Avishek Goenka VS Union of India - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 509 : The legal document confirms that the Supreme Court of India entertained a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The case involved a writ petition (which was a PIL) that was already disposed of, and the Court addressed issues related to the interpretation and application of Rule 100, particularly concerning the use of window films on vehicles. The Court held that the use of black films or any other material on safety glasses is impermissible, and that the interpretation of Rule 100—requiring safety glasses with requisite Visible Light Transmission (VLT)—was a matter of law settled by the Court. The judgment was in rem, meaning it applied generally, and the Court rejected claims that the petitioners were not heard, noting that the decision was consistent with earlier judgments. This demonstrates that the Supreme Court did entertain and adjudicate a PIL challenging a rule under the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.Checking relevance for P. V. KAPUR VS UNION OF INDIA...
Checking relevance for Sanket Sahu VS State of M. P. ...
Checking relevance for B. K. Manish VS State of Chhattisgarh...
B. K. Manish VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2013 0 Supreme(Chh) 102 : The legal document references the Supreme Court case ''''Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another v. C.K. Rajan and others; AIR 2004 SC 561: (2003) 7 SCC 546'''' (the Guruvayoor case), which involved a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of rules governing the administration of a temple. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a PIL could be entertained to challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statutory rule. The Court observed that while the High Court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition by way of PIL questioning the constitutionality or validity of a statute or statutory rule, such petitions may be entertained depending on the facts and circumstances, as well as the nature of the PIL. This case is directly relevant as it confirms that the Supreme Court has entertained a PIL challenging the validity of a rule, thereby providing a precedent for such actions.Checking relevance for ALL INDIA PRIVATE VEHICLE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, NEW DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA...
ALL INDIA PRIVATE VEHICLE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, NEW DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2009 0 Supreme(Sikk) 1 : The judgment references two Supreme Court cases that entertained Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed against rules or administrative actions: (1) Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the entertainment of PILs and emphasized the need for public interest litigants to inspire confidence; and (2) Malik Brothers v. Narendra Dadhich, (1999) 6 SCC 552 : (AIR 1999 SC 3211), where the Supreme Court clarified that PILs are entertained to redress public injury, enforce public duty, protect social rights, and vindicate public interest, and that courts must not entertain PILs if they are merely a cover for individual grievances. These cases demonstrate the Supreme Court''''s willingness to entertain PILs challenging rules or administrative actions when they serve public interest and not private gain.
