A NLIU Bhopal student, Hrishikesh Jaiswal, had filed this WP, in-person seeking effective implementation of the Motor Vehicle Rules in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Hrishikesh Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others on 25 Oct 2021Notice issued
Tag: Public Interest Litigation
PIL – Principal District Judges to have Writ Jurisdiction by implementing Article 32(3) of Constitution
Taking inspiration from the article regarding the proposal of learned senior counsel K.M. Vijayan here, I decided in 2019 to explore the subject deeper in various angles.
Article 32(3) of Constitution of India says so,
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.—
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Statistics
| S.No | High Court Name | Civil | Criminal | Total Cases | Pending Writs | % of Writs |
| 1 | Allahabad High Court | 420,043 | 378,888 | 798,931 | 286,765 | 35.89% |
| 2 | Bombay High Court | 462,687 | 92,129 | 554,816 | 128,649 | 23.19% |
| 3 | Calcutta High Court | 188,685 | 36,436 | 225,121 | – | 0.00% |
| 4 | Gauhati High Court | 44,289 | 10,527 | 54,816 | 23,217 | 42.35% |
| 5 | High Court for State of Telangana | 211,877 | 36,335 | 248,212 | 129,727 | 52.26% |
| 6 | High Court of Andhra Pradesh | 186,214 | 32,288 | 218,502 | 112 (Doubtful) | 0.05% |
| 7 | High Court Of Chhattisgarh | 49,575 | 28,077 | 77,652 | 28,517 | 36.72% |
| 8 | High Court of Delhi | 72,414 | 26,526 | 98,940 | 41,854 | 42.30% |
| 9 | High Court of Gujarat | 101,467 | 50,669 | 152,136 | 506 (Doubtful) | 0.33% |
| 10 | High Court of Himachal Pradesh | 69,976 | 9,831 | 79,807 | 13,045 | 16.35% |
| 11 | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir | 43,622 | 6,788 | 50,410 | 21,048 | 41.75% |
| 12 | High Court of Jharkhand | 41,539 | 45,885 | 87,424 | 26,710 | 30.55% |
| 13 | High Court of Karnataka | 239,725 | 42,018 | 281,743 | 71,252 | 25.29% |
| 14 | High Court of Kerala | 175,453 | 45,791 | 221,244 | 85,192 | 38.51% |
| 15 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh | 250,808 | 154,057 | 404,865 | 119,088 | 29.41% |
| 16 | High Court of Manipur | 4,304 | 457 | 4,761 | 2,354 | 49.44% |
| 17 | High Court of Meghalaya | 1,308 | 160 | 1,468 | 747 | 50.89% |
| 18 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana | 283,359 | 166,895 | 450,254 | 183 (Doubtful) | 0.04% |
| 19 | High Court of Rajasthan | 414,971 | 148,113 | 563,084 | 157,668 | 28.00% |
| 20 | High Court of Sikkim | 174 | 35 | 209 | 101 | 48.33% |
| 21 | High Court of Tripura | 1,368 | 235 | 1,603 | 620 | 38.68% |
| 22 | High Court of Uttarakhand | 24,256 | 16,687 | 40,943 | 16,834 | 41.12% |
| 23 | Madras High Court | 524,174 | 61,435 | 585,609 | 87,240 | 14.90% |
| 24 | Orissa High Court | 130,834 | 52,746 | 183,580 | 81,447 | 44.37% |
| 25 | Patna High Court | 111,608 | 114,222 | 225,830 | 76,495 | 33.87% |
| TOTAL | 4,054,730 | 1,557,230 | 5,611,960 | 1,399,371 | 24.94% |
Source: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/hcnjdgnew/?p=main/pend_dashboard ; As on 28-Sep-2021
So, a total of 25% of the total cases pending
Identified the various stakeholders that may be impacted if this relief materializes.
If the Writs are allowed to be filed and decided at District Court level,
- Litigant Public: The litigant public doesn’t have to incur huge expenses in traveling to the venue of the High Court, engaging a High Court advocate, Have it listed and then keep running expenses from time to time. They can filed their Writ at the District Court itself and engage a competent advocate locally and have considerably less expenses and less timelines to face.
- Learned Advocates: Advocate can take up/file Writs at District level and they do not have to move the High Court. Those advocates who do not practice at High Courts currently, can very well handle Writs at District Court itself, by providing cost-effective legal services.
- Hon’ble Judiciary at District Courts: Considering the current strength of the judges at Supreme Court (33 as on 27-09-2021), High Courts (633 as on 01-09-2021; 465 vacancies as per Vacancy report of Dept of Justice, https://doj.gov.in/appointment-of-judges/vacancy-positions), District Courts (), and the constant onslaught of Writs being filed at High Courts year-on-year, it is near impossible for the 33+633 Judges to get a considerable grip on the Writ-pendency and dispose of the Writs in a time-bound manner. The District Judiciary also gets to work on one of the jurisdictions that they do not have access to, which is Writ Jurisdiction.
Considering the above facts and need of the hour, it is imperative that the Parliament makes a law (even for a limited time like a year) to decentralize the Writ jurisdiction and grant District judges (including Addl DJs, Special Courts, Family Courts, Labour Courts etc) to take up and dispose Writ petitions at their level itself.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs UOI and Anr on 03 Sep 2019
Sri Ashwini Upadhyay ji filed this PIL at Delhi HC seeking the following prayers, which got dismissed saying that there is no public interest in this petition and the prayers are in the realm of Legislature but not Judiciary.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs UOI and Anr on 03 Sep 2019a) direct the Union of India to ascertain the feasibility of implementing 24th recommendation of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Justice Venkatchaliah Commission) on Population Control;
b) declare that State may set Two Child Norm, as a criteria for government jobs, aids and subsidies, and, may withdraw statutory rights viz. right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, right to free legal aid etc.;
c) direct the Government to declare First Sunday of every month as ‘Health Day’ in place of ‘Polio Day’ to spread awareness on population explosion and provide contraceptive pill, condoms, vaccines etc. to EWS and BPL families, with polio vaccines;
d) in the alternative, direct the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive Report on Population Explosion within three months and suggest the ways to control it; and,
e) direct the Government of India to take appropriate and reasoned steps on petitioner’s Representation dated 2.5.2018 within three months;
f) pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and allow the cost of the petition to petitioner.
In re UTP Dipak Joshi, lodged in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home
On 2021-03-22
High Court raised a question if State Government is considering any payment to Dipak Joshi,towards Compensation or damages for 41 years of incarceration without trial.
In re UTP Dipak Joshi, lodged in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home on 22 Mar 2021KK Ramesh Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2021
Petitioner prayed Madras High Court to direct Central Govt/RBI prints Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s pictures on Indian Currency. Due to Judicial Restraint, High Court directed Govt/RBI to consider the representation earlier given by the Petitioner.
KK Ramesh Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2021Citations :
Other Sources :
Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013
Supreme Court has struck down the Section 8(4) as ultra vires to the Constitution which was in the following fashion,
(4) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) a disqualification under either sub-section shall not, in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect until three months have elapsed from that date or, if within that period an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect of the conviction or the sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the court.
From Paras 19 and 20,
19. The result of our aforesaid discussion is that the affirmative words used in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) confer power on Parliament to make one law laying down the same disqualifications for a person who is to be chosen as member of either House of Parliament or as a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and for a person who is a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of the State Legislature and the words in Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution put express limitations on such powers of the Parliament to defer the date on which the disqualifications would have effect. Accordingly, sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act which carves out a saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature fromthe disqualifications under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act or which defers the date on which thedisqualification will take effect in the case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution.
20. Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution expressly prohibitParliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature.Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly subsection(4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.
From Para 23,
Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013…
Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted for any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgment.
…
However, if any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.
Citations : [2013 ABR 6 236], [2013 AD SC 10 655], [2013 AIR SC 2662], [2013 AWC SC 6 5458], [2013 BOMCR 5 261], [2013 CGLRW SC 2 339], [2014 CLT SC 117 284], [2013 JLJR 3 351], [2013 JT SC 9 419], [2013 KARLJ 5 1], [2013 KLJ 3 284], [2013 KERLT 3 296], [2013 LW 4 857], [2013 MLJ 5 463], [2013 OLR 2 941], [2013 PLJR 3 261], [2013 RCR CIVIL 3 713], [2013 SCALE 8 469], [2013 SCC 7 653], [2013 SCC L&S 7 811], [2014 WBLR SC 1 69], [2013 SCC CIV 3 678], [2013 SCC CRI 3 641], [2013 SCC L&S 2 811], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 603], [2013 GUJ LH 2 408], [2013 GUJ LR 3 2209], [2013 ILR KERALA 3 203], [2014 CUT LT 117 284]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63158859/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ee4b0149711415be4
Supreme Court Landmark Judgment- Lilly Thomas v. Union of India
Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya ji has launched a lot of Public Interest Litigation and since the entire collection is not available in a single place, the following is a curated list for interested folks.
Initiated between 1986-1990
Initiated between 1991-1995
Initiated between 1996-2000
Initiated between 2001-2005
Initiated between 2006-2010
Initiated between 2011-2015
Initiated between 2016-2020
- Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 699/2016 : Attacking the pending criminal cases against the elected representatives of people (MPs and MLAs) in various Courts of India and expedite and disposed them on war-footing.
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 329/2019 : The Section 31 of the CrPC, which provides that a convict can serve varying jail terms simultaneously for several offences, should not be made applicable to the convicts in heinous cases under special laws such as “the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act,.
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6259/2019 : Seeking Union Government to implement 24th recommendation of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Justice Venkatchaliah Commission) on Population Control; Two-child norm as a criteria for government jobs, aids and subsidies, and, may withdraw statutory rights viz. right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, right to free legal aid etc.;
Initiated between 2021-2025
- W.P.(C) No. 1334/2020: Regards to Election Reforms in India, i.e., Right to Reject all candidates in an election.
Initiated between 2021-2025
Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors
In this case, Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the National Commission for Minorities Act 1972 and various governmental schemes for the religious minorities at the expense of taxpayer money.
Here is the Petition copy.
Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors - PetitionNeeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Jan 2020On 2020-01-20
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/hindus-suffering-for-being-born-in-majority-plea-in-sc-challenges-constitutionality-of-minorities-commission-welfare-schemes-for-religious-minorities
https://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/sc-issues-notice-plea-challenging-constitutionality-minority-commission-welfare-schemes-religious-minorities/
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-safeguards-for-non-islamic-properties-from-inclusion-of-waqf-plea-in-sc-challenges-the-constitutional-validity-of-waqf-act-1995-162164
Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and others
Advocate Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya had filed this Writ Petition way back in 2016 (2016-09-06) and still the Supreme Court is working on it.
On 2020-03-05:
A 13-column format was finalized to be filled by High Courts, as not many High Courts supplied Amicus with required information. Amicus email id is given wherein the Crime data was to be sent.
Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and others on 05 Mar 2020Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and Ors on 31 Aug 2020On 2020-08-31:
On 2020-09-10:
Submission of the Amicus Curiae:
Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and othersOrder from Court:
Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and others on 10 Sep 2020On 2020-09-16:
Directions were passed to CJs of High Courts for monitoring and expediting the disposal of the criminal cases.
Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and Ors on 16 Sep 2020On 2020-10-06:
Supplementary Submission of the Amicus Curiae:
Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and Ors Supp ReportOn 2020-11-02:
Supplementary Submission (12th Report) of the Amicus Curiae:
2020-11-02 Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and Ors Report_compressedOn 2020-11-02:
Further directions were passed by the Court
2020-11-04 Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya Vs Union of India and OrsAshwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs UOI and Anr on 10 Aug 2021On 2021-08-10:
In view of the law laid down by this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that no prosecution against a sitting or former M.P./M.L.A. shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court in the respective suo-motu writ petitions registered in pursuance of our order dated 16.09.2020. The High Courts are requested to examine the withdrawals, whether pending or disposed of since 16.09.2020, in light of guidelines laid down by this Court.
On 2021-08-11:
The table given in previous day order was amended to include new column, ‘Whether Video Conferencing facility is available’.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs UOI and Anr on 11 Aug 2021On 2021-08-25:
This is the 14th Status Report by Amicus Curiae:
2021-08-24 14th-amicus-report-filed-on-24082021Here is the Order passed.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs UOI and Anr on 25 Aug 2021Tummala Ramesh and Ors Vs UOI and Ors on 23 April 2020
In this set of cases, petitioners raised voice against destruction of Mangrove forests in Kakinada which have been protecting the city from the onslaught of sea currents/waves. The following are various orders issued by AP High Court.
Tummala Ramesh and Ors Vs UOI and Ors on 23 April 2020On 23 April 2020,
Tummala Ramesh and Ors Vs UOI and Ors on 04 May 2020On 04 May 2020,
Tummala Ramesh and Ors Vs UOI and Ors on 11 May 2020On 11 May 2020,
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
