The High Court dismissed a PIL petition challenging the terms and conditions of service of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. The court held that the matter did not fall under the categories of public importance required for entertaining PILs under Supreme Court guidelines.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SOU MOTU P.I.L. NO. 181 OF 2009
Chairperson, Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai .. Petitioner. V/s. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra .. Respondent. ---
Mr. V.P. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for the State.
CORAM : J. N. PATEL AND A. A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 10TH DECEMBER, 2009
P.C. :
Chief Justice, High Court, Bombay, by the Chairperson of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission came to be treated as a public interest litigation on the administrative side by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the first court and notice was issued to the Respondent -State. The Respondent- State has tendered an Affidavit of Mr. Prem Krishan Jain, Principal Secretary (Special), Home Department, Govt. of
2
Maharashtra to which rejoinder has been filed by Shri Kshitij R. Vyas, the Chairperson of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
COMPILATION OF GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR ENTERTAINING LETTERS/ PETITIONS RECEIVED.
IN THIS COURT AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
(Based on full Court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent modifications)
No petition involving individual/personal matter shall be entertained as a PIL matter except as indicated hereinafter :
Letter-petition falling under the following categories alone will
3
ordinarily be entertained as Public Interest Litigation :
*$ Petitions for premature release, parole etc. not matters which deserves to be treated as petitions u/Article 32 as they can effectively be dealt with by the concerned High Court. To save time Registry may simultaneously call for remarks of the jail Superintendent and ask him to forward the same to High Court. The main petition may be forwarded to the concerned High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Even in regard to petitions containing allegations against Jail Authorities there is no reason why it cannot be dealt with by the High Court. But petitions complaining of torture, custody death and the like may be entertained by this Court directly if the allegations are of a serious nature.
(5) Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in police custody.
(6) Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride- burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc.
($ Added based on Order dt. 19.8.1993 of the then Chief Justice of India)
(7) Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co- villagers or by police from persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward classes.
(8) Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of
4
heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other matters of public importance.
(9) Petitions from riot -victims.
(10) Family Pension.
(J.N. Patel,J.)
(A.A. Sayed,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a PIL filed under S. 181 of the Maharashtra Human Rights Commission Rules, 2000 regarding service terms of Commission members qualifies as a maintainable PIL under Supreme Court guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Supreme Court Full Court decision dated 1.12.1988Referred¶14
Chairperson, Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission
Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
J. N. Patel
A. A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
