Let’s begin with the foremost judgment that raised curtain for Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India, delivered by none other than the Super Judge, Shri Krishnaiyer, V.R.
Let’s begin with the foremost judgment that raised curtain for Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India, delivered by none other than the Super Judge, Shri Krishnaiyer, V.R.
The first public interest litigation case in India.
Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors on 29 July, 1980
Citation : 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/440471/
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi on 13 January, 1981Now obviously when an under-trial prisoner is granted the facility of interviews with relatives and friends twice in a week under Rule 559A and a convicted prisoner is permitted to have interviews with his relatives and friends once in a week under Rule 550, it is difficult to understand how sub-clause (ii) of Clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order, which restricts the interview only to one in a month in case of a detenu, can possibly be regarded as reasonable and non-arbitrary, particularly when a detenu stands on a higher pedestal than an under-trial prisoner or a convict and, as held by this Court in Sampath Prakash’s case (supra) restrictions placed on a detenu must “consistent with the effectiveness of detention, be minimal.” We would therefore unhesitatingly hold sub-clause (ii) of clause 3(b) to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 in so far as it permits only one interview in a month to a detenu. We are of the view that a detenu must be permitted to have atleast two interviews in a week with relatives and friends and it should be possible for a relative or friend to have interview with the detenu at any reasonable hour on obtaining permission from the Superintendent of the Jail and it should not be necessary to seek the permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi, as the latter procedure would be cumbrous and unnecessary from the point of view of security and hence unreasonable. We would go so far as to say that even independently of Rules 550 and 559A, we would regard the present norm of two interviews in a week for prisoners as furnishing a criterion of what we would consider reasonable and non-arbitrary.
Citation: 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
Indiakanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78536/
This is the case in which Supreme Court held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right as a part of Article 21.
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) & Anr Vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 August, 2015List of other case laws around Article 21 are here.
M.P. Sharma And Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi on 15 March, 1954
Citation: AIR 1954 SC 300, 1978 (2) ELT 287 SC, (1954) IMLJ 680 SC, 1954 1 SCR 1077
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70398131/
The index page is here.
Babu Singh And Ors Vs The State Of U.P on 31 January, 1978
Citation: 1978 AIR 527, 1978 SCR (2) 777
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1515744/
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors. Etc on 17 November, 1995
Citation: 1996 AIR 786, 1996 SCC (1) 233
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1606330/
Original judgment is here.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
This judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court held that Right to Shelter flows from Article 21 of Constitution of India.
From Para 13,
MS. Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimalal Totame And Others on 31 January, 1990In recent years on account of erosion of the value of the rupee, rampant prevalence of black money and dearth of urban land, the value of such land has gone up sky-high. It has a became impossible for any member of the weaker sections to have residential accommodation anywhere and much less in urban areas. Since a reasonable residence is an indispensable necessity for fulfilling the constitutional goal in the matter of development of man and should be taken as included in ‘life’ in Article 21, greater social control is called for and exemptions granted under Section 20 and 21 should have to be appropriately monitored to have the fullest benefit of the beneficial legislation. We, therefore, commend to the Central Government to prescribe appropriate guidelines laying down the true scope of the term ‘weaker sections of the society’ so that everyone charged with administering the statute would find it convenient to implement the same.
Citation: AIR 1990 SC 630, (1990) 92 BOM LR 145, JT 1990 (1) SC 106, 1990 (1) SCALE 86, (1990) 1 SCC 520, 1990 (1) UJ 379 SC
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1813295/
A follow up judgment from 1995 is here.
Many later judgments are available here.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Just documenting Frivolous PILs and consequences thereof.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/10245952_SC-dismisses-CJAR-s-curative-plea.html
Accidents have risen over years in India and deaths occurring in such accidents have also risen considerably. To give relief to the victims of such accidents and the families of victims who lost their life, both Government and Supreme Court have issued appropriate directions. The below is same for everyone’s benefit.
https://www.livelaw.in/centre-amends-motor-accident-compensation-scale-under-no-fault-liability/
Here is the Amendment to the MV Act 1988 fixing the compensation of 5 lakh rupees in case of accidental death.
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways NotificationSimilarly, for train accidents too while boarding/de-boarding.
Of course, in appropriate cases, criminal proceedings can also be initiated under Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Bad Behavior has blocked 821 access attempts in the last 7 days.