Disposed

Fight for Human Rights v. Union of India

Delhi HC13 Sept 2017W.P.(C)/10283/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged the practice of firearms use in public gatherings endangering life under Article 21. The Acting Chief Justice held no adjudication was required and directed the respondent to formulate and notify an effective policy with penalties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to notify an effective policy and view the petitioners' issues within three months from the date of the order.

Fight for Human Rights Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~2&3

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision : 13^th September, 2017

¶4

¶5

W.P.(C) 4057/2016

¶6

SHYAM SUNDER KAUSAL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Akash Vajpai, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ... Respondents Through : Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Shambhu Chaturvedi, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv. for R-2 & 3. + W.P.(C) 10283/2016 FIGHT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. K. R. Chitra, Adv. versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms. Mohita, Adv. for R-1.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶11

W.P.(C)Nos.4057/2016 & 10283/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶12

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶13

By way of these writ petitions, the writ petitioners flag an important issue that there is an obnoxious practice of using arms, licenced and unlicenced, in public gatherings, religious places, marriage parties and other functions to fire ammunition in a gesture of showing joy. It is submitted that thereby the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of others is imperilled. These writ petitions point out actual incidents of such firing which have resulted in loss of life and limb.

¶14

On these facts, the writ petitioners pray for a direction to the respondent Union of India to frame stringent policies/rules/guidelines to curb the obnoxious practice of such firing and also to evolve a robust mechanism to ensure that such arms licences are not misused and, if misused, direct that penalties be levelled and licences cancelled.

¶15

The petitioners have also flagged an important issue regarding the culpability and liability to pay compensation upon loss of life and injury resulting from such firing. In the rejoinder filed in W.P.(C)No.4057/2016, the petitioner has pointed out several important measures suggesting that such measures deserve to be taken by the respondents to discourage such firing.

¶16

These writ petitions are certainly not adversarial and the issues flagged by the writ petitioners are important. However, no adjudication on the above issues is required and the matter can be disposed of at this stage.

¶17

W.P.(C)Nos.4057/2016 & 10283/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶18

A direction is issued to the respondents to consider all issues flagged by the petitioners in these writ petitions as well as measures pointed out in the rejoinder, filed by the petitioner, in W.P.(C)No.4057/2016 and to notify an effective policy regarding the same. A view shall be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from today.

¶19

These writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

¶20

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 aj

¶21

W.P.(C)Nos.4057/2016 & 10283/2016 Page 3 of 3

Fight for Human Rights v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fight for Human Rights v. Union of India

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

Surya Recreation Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Comniissioner of Income Tax (Tds) & Ors.

Fariyaad Foundation through Its President,Ravi Pratap Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

National Human Rights Commission Vs Central Information Commission & Anr.

National Human Rights Commission Vs Central Information Commission & Anr.

M/S.Dujodwala Resins & Terpene Vs Govt.of N.C.T.of Delhi & Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Jain Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Ram Kartar @ Kartar Singh Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Giridhari Lal Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Fariyaad Foundation through Its President,Ravi Pratap Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Suprio Mukherjee Vs Bcd Electric Ltd.

Sunil Kumar Aledia Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shyam Sunder Kausal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Joginder Kumar Shukhija Vs Union of India and Ors.

Balbir Singh Saini Vs Archaeological Survey of India and Ors.