The document discusses whether a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against the Union of India is maintainable. It argues that a PIL is maintainable under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to seek judicial remedies. Article 32 has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to allow any individual, organization, or public-spirited person to file a PIL to remedy a violation of fundamental rights or address issues of significant public interest. The document also notes that fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy environment under Article 21, have allegedly been violated in this case due to noise pollution.
The document discusses whether a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against the Union of India is maintainable. It argues that a PIL is maintainable under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to seek judicial remedies. Article 32 has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to allow any individual, organization, or public-spirited person to file a PIL to remedy a violation of fundamental rights or address issues of significant public interest. The document also notes that fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy environment under Article 21, have allegedly been violated in this case due to noise pollution.
The document discusses whether a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against the Union of India is maintainable. It argues that a PIL is maintainable under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to seek judicial remedies. Article 32 has been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to allow any individual, organization, or public-spirited person to file a PIL to remedy a violation of fundamental rights or address issues of significant public interest. The document also notes that fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy environment under Article 21, have allegedly been violated in this case due to noise pollution.
WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED AGAINST UNION OF
INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE? The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution 1, since right of article 21 is violated. Hence there has been violation of Fundamental Rights. I.1. Public Interest litigation can be filed against the union of india A PIL can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution; therefore, the PIL is maintainable against Union of india. Article 32 is referred to as the "Constitutional Remedy" for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law. The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. Relaxation of strict rule of Locus Standi: The strict rule of locus standi has been relaxed by way of (a) Representative standing, and (b) Citizen standing. In D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, Supreme Court held that a petitioner, a professor of political science who had done substantial research and deeply interested in ensuring proper implementation of the
constitutional provisions, challenged the practice followed by the state of Bihar in
repromulgating a number of ordinances without getting the approval of the legislature. The court held that the petitioner as a member of public has sufficient interest to maintain a petition under Article 32. The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration
I.2. Fundamental Rights have been violated
Also, there has been violation of right to Healthy Environment as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since the people are responsible for noise pollution.