Allowed

Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2010WPS/5593/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.(S) Nos. 5594, 5593 & 5898 of 2009, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, by a single judge, orally disposed of petitions. The bench quashed a press release issued by respondent authorities, which compelled petitioners to file an affidavit, on grounds of violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Press release was quashed; liberty reserved to respondent authorities to take appropriate steps after proper opportunity of hearing to petitioners.

Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

, w ‘$
v2“
¢3\CA..:.

C62 I %

@Qj‘

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR w. P. (S) No. $“S93 of 2009 W m 3mm PETITIONER : Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta, aged about L34 years ’Gupta,S/o Dhanushdhari Prasad R/o Village Guturama, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, District— Sarguja (C.G.)

¶6

¶7

VERSUS
f
RESPONDENTS 1: State of Chhattisgarh : Through
Secretary - Panchayat
Department, Dau Kalyan Singh
_ Bhawan Raipur (C.G.)
f
2. Zila Panchayat Sarguja, through
Chief Executive Officer, Sarguja,
District—Sarguja (C.G.)
x’"
3. Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur,
through the Chief Executive
’ Officer, District-Sarguja (C.G.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat Sarguja, District—
Sarguja (C.G.)

¶8

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶9

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BfLASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI NO.5594 OF 2009

PETITIONER

Shallesh Kumar Gupta

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh & Others

¶15

And

¶16

W.P.(S) Nos. 5593 & 5898 of 2009

¶17

(Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶18

Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

¶19

Present :-

¶20

Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶21

Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶22

Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur District Surguja.

¶23

ORDER ORAL

¶24

(Passed on this 8 day of April, 2010)

¶25

Since W.P.(S) Nos.5594, 5593 & 5898 of 2009 involve the same. question of Iaw and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶26

In the batch of petitions, challenge is to the press release (Annexure P/1 in W.P. (S) No. 5594 of 2009) wherein the petitioners have been directed to tile affidavit as under:

¶27

atmwgwstwm ti m anmwtmmmw

¶28

g §§m§gmw§£§w$§ guiai? m§z§\§¢.@%m§§m

¶29

g ma gg. w¢

¶30

%\i§§§$§gdg£& %4&%: jgdwwwmuwwmwwgmi w.g aw mam % g A4a§we§u mm$§mm£mq§ _ g gggdma w» ma ma

gggdma w» ma ma

wwnaawgaggw.

wgrwd

@mEQgaq

§§m§§§$§ .$§ #g%§§w‘$§z egg § Agmimzvm$§ gadi g$%§§@§m§§ gim§§§m§i$§§ ggwawwggg §%.§w&§& gngmzaam? §a£a§ @iggiiiw.$g& g a magig g A§.$_m.%.v$4 igQEH.

¶36

£%\I

¶37

in absence of the affidavit^{asafore-stated} First information Report may^belodged.

¶38

it was observed that

¶39

Shri Thakur, teamed counsel appearing for the Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District Surguaj submits^that it is true that press^{releasewasissued,however,thereisnointentiontopass} any order on the basis of the said press release and the respondent authorities^are not insisting or directing any^ofthe petitioner^to give^such affidavit owning^{thefactthatforgedor} fabricated documents, have^{beenfliedbythem.}

¶40

The Bench of 8 Hon’ble^{JudgesoftheSupremeCourtinM.P} . Sharma & others v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and others1,^{whileconsideringthescopeofArticle20(3)} of the Constitution^{ofIndiaobservedasunder} :

¶41

“(9) In view of the above back— ground,^{thereisnoinherentreasonto} construe the^{ambitofthisfundamental} right as comprising^{averywiderange.} Nor would it-be legitimate^toconfine it to the barely literal meaning of the words used, since it is a recognized doctrine that when appropriate a constitutional provision has to be liberally construed, so as to advance the intendment thereof^andto prevent its circumvention.

¶42

Analysing the terms in which this right has been declared in our Constitution, it may be said^toconsist of the following components (1) lt is a “accused right pertaining to a person of an offence"; (2) It is a protection against^{“compulsion} to be a witness”; and (3) It is a protection^againstsuch compulsion resulting in his giving evidence “against himself".

¶43

¶44

1 AIR 1954 sc 300:

¶45

¶46

Such an^{actoftherespondentNo.2compellingthepetitionersto} file an affidavit against themselves amounts to violation of fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution^{ofIndia,ashasbeenclarifiedbytheSupremeCourt} in a catena^ofdecisions.

¶47

‘7. ln view of^{foregoing,the} press^{releaseisquashed,asthesame} However,^{libertyisreservedtothe} shall not^be given^effectto. respondent^{authoritiestotakeappropriatestepsafteraffording} if so advised. proper^{opportunityofhearingtothe} petitioners, Needless to say that it is for^the parties to take appropriate action thereafter,^{ifneedbe,inaccordancewithlaw.}

¶48

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are l r ' allowed. No orderasto^costs. : v, sd/,j satism.^Agn’mm ' ,» f Judge T’k

¶49

Gowri

Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Radha Tiwari Vs Sec.Govt.of M.P.Local Self Govt. and Ors.

Kalawati Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Nirdavan Singh Ramo Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sudama Prasad Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramawtar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dharam Pal Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.