Disposed

Pankaj S/O Leeladhar @ Lalitji Meshram v. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and Others

Bombay HC6 Jun 2018PIL/114/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL arose from a Central Government communication advising refraining from using the term "Dalit" for Scheduled Caste members. The Court directed the State Government to consider issuing suitable directions to the media within eight weeks. The petition was subsequently disposed of as the grievance was settled.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 1 to consider issuing directions to the media within six weeks and respondent no. 2 within eight weeks; disposed of PIL.

Pankaj S/O Leeladhar @ Lalitji Meshram Vs Joint Secretary… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 pil114.2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 114/2016

¶4

Pankaj S/o Leeladhar @ Lalitji Meshram ..VS..

¶5

Joint Secretary & ors.

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 Shri D.P. Thakare, AGP for the respondent nos. 3 and 4

¶11

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ. DATED : 06/06/2018

¶12

1] Advocate Shri Narnaware has produced before us the communication dated 15/03/2018 issued by the Director, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (respondent no. 5) which advises the Central Government, State Government and its functionaries to refrain from using the nomenclature “Dalit” while referring to members belonging to Scheduled Caste.

¶13

2] Advocate Shri Narnaware submits that because of this communication, grievance made in prayer (a) is redressed.

¶14

3] Learned AGP pointed out that because of this decision, State Government is also deliberating and appropriate decision on line could be taken at the earliest. Advocate Shri Narnaware submits that as State Government is taking a decision, the direction to State Governent at this juncture is also not necessary.

¶15

2 pil114.2016

¶16

4] Advocate Shri Narnaware however adds that the media needs to be asked to refrain from using said word. He points out that Press Council of India and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting are party respondents before this Court.

¶17

5] Advocate Shri Choudhari appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that he has received copy of letter dated 15/03/2018 today only in Court from the petitioner and he needs time to obtain instructions about it.

¶18

6] As Central Government has issued necessary directions to its officers, we find that it can also issue suitable directions as per law to the respondent no. 2 and the media to refrain from using same word. Various institutes in the field are not before us and hence, we direct respondent no. 1 to consider the question of issuing such direction to the media and take suitable decision upon it within next six weeks.

¶19

7] Similarly we direct respondent no. 3 to take appropriate decision within next eight weeks.

¶20

8] In view of this development, Advocate Shri Narnaware submits that PIL may be disposed of as grievance is settled. Hence, without prejudice to the rights and contention of intervenor/respondent no. 6 who is absent today, we dispose of present PIL accordingly. No costs.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Ansari

Pankaj S/O Leeladhar @ Lalitji Meshram v. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj S/O Leeladhar @ Lalitji Meshram v. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sardar Jagdeepsingh Namberdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Manikrao Naik and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. Mumbai and Others

Pravin Rangnath Shirke and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachin Bhaurao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Ganpat Jotiba Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Khurshed Soli Dhondy Vs Her Royal Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Neatherlands and Ors.

Godavari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal Sinchan Bhawan through Executive Engineer Vs State of Maharashtra through Collector and 4 Others

Sanjay Hiraman Chalakh Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Executive Officer, Gadchiroli

Anupkumar Paisadely Vs Government of India through General Manager South East Central Railway, Kolkata and Others

Nagari Hakka Saurakshan Manch, Thr. Central President, Shri Janardan Gulabrao Moon, Nagpur Vs the State of Maha., Department of General Administration Department, Mumbai and Others

Shri Anup Ambadas Charpe Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Aai Saraswati Bahu-Uddeshiya Mahila Vikas Sanstha, Pulgaon Thr. Secretary Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai and Others