Nandigram: State to submit affidavit
KOLKATA: The State government was directed by the Calcutta High Court on Friday to submit an affidavit with regard to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the violence that had claimed lives in Nandigram, in West Bengal’s Purbo Medinipur district, in the early part of November 2007.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice S. S. Nijjar and Justice P. C. Ghose directed that the affidavit be filed within eight weeks and adjourned a hearing on the prayer for ten weeks after taking into consideration the arguments of the State’s Advocate General, Balai Roy and those made on behalf of the petitioner, Sabyasachi Roy Choudhury.
Mr. Roy maintained that the PIL was not maintainable as 260 cases had already been registered by the local police regarding the violence. There had been no law and order problem in the area since November 11, 2007 he added.
Mr. Roy Choudhury had filed the litigation on the grounds that the police pickets had been withdrawn from different areas of Nandigram enabling cadres of a particular political party to enter and indulge in violence there.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Kalyan Banerjee said that the police had been withdrawn to enable cadres of the CPI(M) to enter Nandigram and recapture the area. At least five persons were killed, several others injured and many displaced in the violence in November, he claimed.
The Calcutta High Court had earlier directed the CBI to investigate into the police firing and subsequent violence that claimed 14 lives in Nandigram on March 14, 2007.
Showing posts with label PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION. Show all posts
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
PIL ON BLUE LINE DEFERRED
PIL hearing on Blueline deferred
The Delhi High Court on Thursday deferred the hearing in a PIL related to the rampaging Blueline buses saying it could hear the matter only after the issue of “judicial restraint” was clarified by the apex court.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikramjit Sen and P K Bhasin said “What is the hurry? Let us wait for the outcome of the petition, filed before the Supreme Court on the issue.”
Dismissing a contention that the apex court ruling did not apply to this case, the court said it could hear the matter only when the issue of “judicial restraint” was clarified by the Supreme Court. News reports
The court then posted the matter, which was earlier instituted as PIL after it had taken suo motu cognizance of news reports relating to road accidents in the Capital involving Blueline buses, to February 5. Senior advocate Kailash Vasudev, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae (friend of court), submitted that the ruling of Justices Markendaya Katju and A K Mathur of the Supreme Court did not apply on this case as “the High Court is not going to frame any law on the Blueline menace.” “The SC ruling says that the judiciary cannot frame laws, but it can only ensure compliance of existing laws,” he said, adding that the earlier apex court rulingshave not been adhered to by operators.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday deferred the hearing in a PIL related to the rampaging Blueline buses saying it could hear the matter only after the issue of “judicial restraint” was clarified by the apex court.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikramjit Sen and P K Bhasin said “What is the hurry? Let us wait for the outcome of the petition, filed before the Supreme Court on the issue.”
Dismissing a contention that the apex court ruling did not apply to this case, the court said it could hear the matter only when the issue of “judicial restraint” was clarified by the Supreme Court. News reports
The court then posted the matter, which was earlier instituted as PIL after it had taken suo motu cognizance of news reports relating to road accidents in the Capital involving Blueline buses, to February 5. Senior advocate Kailash Vasudev, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae (friend of court), submitted that the ruling of Justices Markendaya Katju and A K Mathur of the Supreme Court did not apply on this case as “the High Court is not going to frame any law on the Blueline menace.” “The SC ruling says that the judiciary cannot frame laws, but it can only ensure compliance of existing laws,” he said, adding that the earlier apex court rulingshave not been adhered to by operators.
Friday, December 21, 2007
HC seeks Punjab govt reply
HC seeks Punjab govt reply 22 Dec 2007, 0159 hrs IST,Vishal Sharma
Coming to the rescue of hapless villagers in Punjab, who are virtually drinking poison in the name of water, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a notice of motion to the state for January 22, on Friday. The court did this while treating a report published on December 18 in the TOI as a public interest litigation (PIL). Expressing anguish over the horrific state of affairs shown through the TOI report based on a PGIMER, Chandigarh, inquiry spanning two years, the division bench, comprising chief justice Vijender Jain and justice Mahesh Grover, sought Punjab’s reply on the issue. The report had caught the high court’s attention on December 18 itself. The division bench, comprising justices KS Garewal and Daya Chaudhary, had termed the contents of the report as "frightening" reflection on the scenario prevailing in Punjab’s villages. Justices Garewal and Chaudhary, made a quick note of the points of concern as highlighted in the report and referred the matter to the chief justice requesting him to examine the contents of the report and treat it as a PIL. The PGIMER team of experts had probed the effects of industrial waste and pesticides on human health in 25 Punjab villages located near five open drains. The study found varying degrees of DNA mutation in 65% of the blood samples taken. It also detected genetic damage in some cases. That was not all. The drinking water in these villages had turned toxic due to a high concentration of heavy metals such as mercury, copper, cadmium, chromium and lead. The report had brought to fore the fact of numbness, miscarriages and skin ailments affecting the residents of Mahal village in Amritsar district. The principal investigator, Dr JS Thakur, had outlined the possible scenarios caused by genotoxicity, a condition in which lethal chemicals gather in the body leading to DNA damage. The news report had stated that in future, more children will be born with congenital malformations like cleft lip, half skull or no skull, growth retardation. Pregnant women will have more sudden, "spontaneous" abortions, the report said.
Coming to the rescue of hapless villagers in Punjab, who are virtually drinking poison in the name of water, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a notice of motion to the state for January 22, on Friday. The court did this while treating a report published on December 18 in the TOI as a public interest litigation (PIL). Expressing anguish over the horrific state of affairs shown through the TOI report based on a PGIMER, Chandigarh, inquiry spanning two years, the division bench, comprising chief justice Vijender Jain and justice Mahesh Grover, sought Punjab’s reply on the issue. The report had caught the high court’s attention on December 18 itself. The division bench, comprising justices KS Garewal and Daya Chaudhary, had termed the contents of the report as "frightening" reflection on the scenario prevailing in Punjab’s villages. Justices Garewal and Chaudhary, made a quick note of the points of concern as highlighted in the report and referred the matter to the chief justice requesting him to examine the contents of the report and treat it as a PIL. The PGIMER team of experts had probed the effects of industrial waste and pesticides on human health in 25 Punjab villages located near five open drains. The study found varying degrees of DNA mutation in 65% of the blood samples taken. It also detected genetic damage in some cases. That was not all. The drinking water in these villages had turned toxic due to a high concentration of heavy metals such as mercury, copper, cadmium, chromium and lead. The report had brought to fore the fact of numbness, miscarriages and skin ailments affecting the residents of Mahal village in Amritsar district. The principal investigator, Dr JS Thakur, had outlined the possible scenarios caused by genotoxicity, a condition in which lethal chemicals gather in the body leading to DNA damage. The news report had stated that in future, more children will be born with congenital malformations like cleft lip, half skull or no skull, growth retardation. Pregnant women will have more sudden, "spontaneous" abortions, the report said.
Beware private malice behind veil of public interest: court
Beware private malice behind veil of public interest: court
High Courts cautioned against entertaining PIL recklessly
PIL should be used with great care, circumspection
It should not be used for suspicious products of mischief
Even as a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court recently decided to lay down guidelines for entertaining public interest litigation petitions, a two-judge Bench has cautioned the High Courts against entertaining such pleas recklessly.
The Bench, comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, pointed out that the court had already laid down basic parameters for entertaining PIL pleas. But the High Courts continued to entertain them, ignoring the parameters. Wastage of time
Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Pasayat said:
“It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of genuine litigants.
“We spare no effort in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard.”
The Bench said: “While genuine litigants with legitimate grievances are standing in a long queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of PIL and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts.”
As a result of PIL, “the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.”
The Bench said PIL was a weapon which should be used with great care and circumspection, and the judiciary had to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity monger was not lurking.
“PIL is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of PIL should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.”“Prevent crafty invasions”
The Bench said: “Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.”
In the instant case, acting on a PIL petition from Prem Chandra Mishra and others on land allotment, the Patna High Court passed an order giving certain directions. In a special leave petition, Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd challenged this order. The apex court Bench set it aside and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
High Courts cautioned against entertaining PIL recklessly
PIL should be used with great care, circumspection
It should not be used for suspicious products of mischief
Even as a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court recently decided to lay down guidelines for entertaining public interest litigation petitions, a two-judge Bench has cautioned the High Courts against entertaining such pleas recklessly.
The Bench, comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, pointed out that the court had already laid down basic parameters for entertaining PIL pleas. But the High Courts continued to entertain them, ignoring the parameters. Wastage of time
Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Pasayat said:
“It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of genuine litigants.
“We spare no effort in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard.”
The Bench said: “While genuine litigants with legitimate grievances are standing in a long queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of PIL and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts.”
As a result of PIL, “the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.”
The Bench said PIL was a weapon which should be used with great care and circumspection, and the judiciary had to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity monger was not lurking.
“PIL is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of PIL should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.”“Prevent crafty invasions”
The Bench said: “Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.”
In the instant case, acting on a PIL petition from Prem Chandra Mishra and others on land allotment, the Patna High Court passed an order giving certain directions. In a special leave petition, Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd challenged this order. The apex court Bench set it aside and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)