1999 JTR(SC) 1342
1999 4 MLJ 113 ; 2000 2 SCC 81 ; 2001 1 SLT 519 ; 2000 KHC 948
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand, CJI., D.P.Wadhwa : G.T.Nanavati : K.T.Thomas : S.R.Babu, JJ.
Ranji Thomas
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 158 of 1990
Date of Decision : 11/17/99
In public interest litigation, while a petitioner generally cannot challenge an act that the affected party does not wish to contest, locus standi may be granted if the case involves a significant public issue and the interpretation of constitutional provisions.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.32
(A) Constitution of India - Article 156 - Chapter II - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Challenge to the forced resignation of constitutional authorities - A petitioner cannot challenge an act which the party affected does not wish to nor intend to challenge (Para 6) - However, where a petition raises an important public issue and involves the interpretation of the Constitution, locus standi may be granted to the petitioner for raising that specific issue (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
A public interest litigation was filed seeking to restrain the head of state from forcibly extracting resignations from various state and union territory heads and to declare the communications seeking such resignations as ultra vires the Constitution. The respondent contended that no forced resignations occurred and that the officials had resigned without protest. The petitioner failed to produce authenticated material or evidence to support the factual matrix of the case, relying primarily on unverified newspaper reports.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi regarding the prayers to quash specific resignations because the affected parties had not approached the court or protested. However, the court found that the petitioner had locus to challenge the constitutional validity of the communications as it involved a significant public issue and the interpretation of Article 156. Ultimately, the court noted that the material on record was absolutely scanty and wanting for adjudication.
Issues: Whether a petitioner in a public interest litigation has the locus standi to challenge the resignation of constitutional authorities when the affected parties have not protested, and whether the communication seeking such resignations is ultra vires the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: While a third party generally cannot challenge an action that the affected party does not wish to contest, locus standi may be granted in a public interest litigation if the matter involves a significant public issue and the interpretation of constitutional provisions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.
Facts of the case:
A public interest litigation was filed seeking to restrain the head of state from forcibly extracting resignations from various state and union territory heads and to declare the communications seeking such resignations as ultra vires the Constitution. The respondent contended that no forced resignations occurred and that the officials had resigned without protest. The petitioner failed to produce authenticated material or evidence to support the factual matrix of the case, relying primarily on unverified newspaper reports.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi regarding the prayers to quash specific resignations because the affected parties had not approached the court or protested. However, the court found that the petitioner had locus to challenge the constitutional validity of the communications as it involved a significant public issue and the interpretation of Article 156. Ultimately, the court noted that the material on record was absolutely scanty and wanting for adjudication.
Issues: Whether a petitioner in a public interest litigation has the locus standi to challenge the resignation of constitutional authorities when the affected parties have not protested, and whether the communication seeking such resignations is ultra vires the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: While a third party generally cannot challenge an action that the affected party does not wish to contest, locus standi may be granted in a public interest litigation if the matter involves a significant public issue and the interpretation of constitutional provisions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.
Reference - The judgment refers to a collection of referred judgments without specifying a particular case.
PublicInterestLitigation - The Attorney General relies on this case to argue that the petition is not maintainable since the affected Governors did not wish to challenge the act.
Locus - Cited to argue that a public interest litigation is not maintainable when the affected parties do not wish to challenge the act in question.
(1) THIS writ petition filed as PIL, seeks intervention of this Court to restrain the President of India to "forcibly" extract resignations from various Governors and Lt. Governors, Respondents 3 to 29, and further for a direction to the President not to accept the "involuntary" resignations of the Governors and Lt. Governors submitted in January 1990.
(2) THE prayers in this writ petition are as follows:
"(A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the resignations of the respondent Governors and Lt. Governors.
(B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions restraining the President from accepting the involuntary and forced resignations of Governors and Lt. Governors.
(C) Declare that the communication of the President seeking the resignations of Governors and Lt. Governors is ultra vires the Constitution of India."
(3) THE writ petition was referred to the Constitution Bench by an order of a two-Judge Bench of this Court dated 9-2-1990 having regard to the importance of the question concerning the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution in the context of the scheme of Chapter II of the Constitution of India.
(4) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India it is stated that there has been no "forcible extraction" of the resignations and that the Governors had resigned "without any protest".
(5) THE learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of India submits that this public interest litigation is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, since none of the Governors or Lt. Governors have approached this Court or protested against their being asked to resign and that the petitioner cannot challenge an act which the party affected does not wish to nor intend to challenge. He relies upon the observations made by this Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India.
(6) INSOFAR as prayers (a) and (b) in the writ petition are concerned, we find force in the submission of the learned Attorney General. But, insofar as prayer (c) of the writ petition is concerned, it raises an important public issue and involves the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution of India, as at present advised, we do not think that we can deny locus to the petitioner for raising that issue.
(7) WE, however, find that the material on the record for seeking adjudication of that issue is absolutely scanty and wanting. What communication was sent by the President has not even been disclosed. As a matter of fact no material, except a couple of newspaper reports, the correction of which also has not been verified or authenticated by the petitioner, has been placed on record by the petitioner to provide a factual matrix for consideration of the writ petition.
(8) FACED with this situation, the petitioner, who appears in person, submits that he has been unable to procure the relevant material and place the same on record in support of the averments made in the writ petition filed about ten years ago. He, therefore, seeks to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. No costs.
(9) ISSUE notice returnable within three weeks from today to the Union of India and to the Secretary to the President of India (by a letter of request). Issue notice also to the Attorney General returnable within even time. Having regard to the importance of the question involved in this petition which concerns the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution in the context of the scheme of Chapter II of the Constitution, we direct that this writ petition should be placed before a Constitution Bench for disposal in accordance with law. The stay application to be posted along with main petition. Liberty to mention for fixing an early date of hearing. Court Master