Petitioner sought direction for police security for informers and non-disclosure of their identities. Court held government policy preserves secrecy; specific protection is case-by-case. Court refused PIL intervention on rewards and company info, directing关注者 to relevant authorities.
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.
mgn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL PETITION NO.43 OF 2009
Manoranjan Santosh Roy
...Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
..Respondents
Petitioner in person present Mr. A.M. Sethna with Mr. M.I. Sethna for respondent No.1. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos. 6 to 8
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 14TH JANUARY, 2010
P.C.
Petitioner in person by the present petition seeks relief by way of adequate police security to all informers and their family members and further to direct the respondents not to disclose the identity of the informers to anyone under any circumstances.
Petition accordingly disposed off.
(J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F,I. REBELLO,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should direct respondents to provide police security to informers and their families.
Whether the Court should direct respondents not to disclose the identity of informers.
Whether this is a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in a PIL regarding reward schemes.
Manoranjan Santosh Roy
Union of India
F.I. REBELLO
J.H. BHATIA
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
