M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA

 HELLO FRIENDS! WELCOME BACK AGAIN TO MY BLOG , TODAY I AM HERE TO DELIVER ONE MORE INTERESTING CASE WHICH IS MOST RENOWED CASE.SO LET US BEGIN WITH:

In M.C MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA,  the Supreme Court has further widened the scope of Public interest litigation under Article 32 .Bhagwati, J, speaking for the majority laid down the following guidelines:

(1) The Court held that the poor in India can seek enforcement of their Fundamental rights from the Supreme Court by writing a letter to any judge. Also, such a letter does not have to be accompanied by an affidavit. His lordship expressly referred the apprehension expressed by Pathak, J., in BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA  case that such letters should not be addressed to any individual judge but only to the court ,held that such an approach would deny easy access to the court to the poor and disadvantaged persons or by social action group who might not know the proper form of address to the court. They may know only the particular judge who comes from their state and they may therefore address the letter to him.

(2) The Court also held that under Article 32 it has power to grant remedial relief which includes the power to grant compensation in appropriate cases where the Fundamental rights of the poor and disadvantaged person are violated. However, Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for claiming compensation for the infringement of Fundamental rights through the ordinary process of a Civil Court. It can only be done where the violation of Fundamental rights of poor is "gross and patent" and "affects persons on a large scale" or where it appears to be "unjust or unduly harsh or oppressive on account of their poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantage position to seek remedy in civil court. This is the principle on which court awarded compensation to RUDUL SHAH and BHIM SINGH whose fundamental rights to personal liberty were grossly violated by the State. In such cases it would be gravely unjust to ask him to go to the civil court for claiming compensation.

(3) The Court held that the Court can appoint socio legal commissions or devise any procedure and forge any tools it deems appropriate for the enforcement of Fundamental rights of the poor.

The Court endorsed the statement of law laid down by Bhagwati, J., in  Bandhua Mukti Morcha case :

"Article 32 does not merely confer power on the court to issue a direction, order or writ for the enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this court to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose this court has all incidental and ancillary powers including to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce fundamental rights. It is in realisation of this constitution obligation that this court has innovated new methods and strategies particularly for enforcing the Fundamental Rights of the poor and disadvantage who are denied their human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning".

"HOPE YOU REALLY LIKED THE ARTICLE IF YES COMMENT ON BELLOW AND SHARE THIS WITH YOUR FRIENDS".