Rajeev - Artcile 32 & 226
Rajeev - Artcile 32 & 226
INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A
THREAT TO JUSTICE
EVERYWHERE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
”
ARTICLE 32 AND 226
OVERVIEW
• INTRODUCTION OF ARTICLES
• WRITS AND SCOPE
• JUDICIAL REVIEW
• JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
• CONCLUSION
TRUE PEACE IS NOT MERELY THE ABSENCE OF
WAR, IT IS THE PRESENCE OF JUSTICE (JANE ADDAMS)
• The essence of justice lies in Rule of law i.e. supremacy of law
WritCorpus
Habeas of Writ of
Certiorari Writ of
Mandamus Writ of Quo-
Warranto Writ of
Prohibition
-> Release of person from
111e g a I d ete nti on
- > L e g a l i ty of detention
Scope
• It is in the nature of an order calling upon the person
who has detained another to produce the latter before
the court
• To know on what ground he has been detained
• To set him free if there is no legal justification for the
imprisonment
Increasing Scope of Habeas corpus
• Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate
the court may examine the legality of the detention without requiring the person
detained to be produced before it
• Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
if the detained person is unable to pray for the writ of habeas corpus, someoneelsemay
pray for such writ on his behalf.
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
The petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs. 1, 50, 000.
Grounds for Writ of Mandamus
The Writ can granted against a public authority if
• Acted against the law
• Exceeded his limits of power
• Acted with mala fides
• Did not apply his mind
• Abused his discretionary powers
• Did not take into account relevant consideration
• Has taken into account irrelevant consideration
Case Laws
• Hemendra v Gauhati University :
passed Mandamus
where, was had
University issued to direct
refused so a University
to declare to announce
though the that the
petitioner ha
d petitionerhas
obtained
the pass marks required by the statutory rules of the University.
Judicial
Activism
Check n
o Expediting
the
Discretion Administrative Reforms
program
♦ JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
(Impact on Administration d
an
ciety)
o
S
CHILD WELFARE:
CASE: MUNNA . V. STATE OF U.P (1982) 1S
C
FACT: Public interest litigation was filed in the court on the basis of a news reportaboutsexual
exploitation of children by hardened criminals in Kanpur jail. The court directed the
District judge, Kanpur to visit the jail and report the report confirmed the crime of
sodomy committed against the children. The court directed the release of the children
from jail and their shifting them to children’s home.
RAPE ON WORKING WOMEN - Rehabilitation & co m
p
en
satio.
CASE : VISHAKA . V. STATE OF R
A
JS
T
HA
NIR1997 SC 301141
A
• FACT : The Supreme Court has laid down exhaustive guidelines for preventing sexual
harassment of working women in place of their work until legislation is enacted for this
purpose.
• The court held that the court has the power under Article 32 to lay down such guidelines for
affective enforcement of fundamental rights of working women at their work places and
declared that this would be treated as the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article
141 of the constitution
PROTECTION AGAINST INHUMAN TREATMENTIN
JAIL :
QUESTIONS?????