Citizen Hope: The Soul of the Law

From issues such as illegal detention (which is a violation of the right to life and liberty), to compensation for victims of a disaster, environmental degradation and for creating a system of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — the Supreme Court of India has taken up such cases while considering the protection of the fundamental rights of the people. Any case filed before the SC in which a person claims that their fundamental right has been violated, is filed under Article 32. The apex court has the power not only to prevent the infringement of fundamental right, but also to provide relief and remedy if a breach of the fundamental right is committed. This is done by issuing orders or “writs” to enforce the rights. Some of the most well-known cases under this category are:

RD Shetty vs International Airport Authority (1979)

It is an example of the role of the  government as a provider of services and benefits to the people. The Supreme court held that Article 32 can be utilised to enforce fundamental rights, “whether the violation of fundamental right arises out of an executive action/inaction or action of the legislature.”

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India (1984)

The Supreme Court of India took up the case of bonded labourers being forced to work in stone quarries in Faridabad on the basis of a letter sent as a complaint by an NGO to the Court. This case laid the foundation of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the country. The court said that “in a country like India, where there is so much of poverty, ignorance, exploitation etc, any insistence on a rigid formula of proceeding” would “place enforcement of fundamental rights beyond the reach of the common man.”

The State of Himachal Pradesh vs Parent of a student of a medical college (1985)

The Himachal Pradesh High Court took up a case on a letter sent by the parent of a student who was facing ragging at a medical college, and issued directions to create an anti-ragging committee. The Supreme Court held that it was “entirely a matter for the executive branch of the Government…to decide whether or not to introduce any particular legislation… The Court certainly cannot mandate the executive or any memberof the legislature to initiate…” But, “If the executive is not carrying out any duty laid upon it by the Constitution or the law, the Court can certainly require the executive to carry out such duty.”

MC Mehta vs Union of India — Chlorine Gas leak case (1987)

The Supreme Court directed the government to pay compensation after leakage of chlorine gas from the Sriram Food and Fertiliser company plant led to several deaths and health problems for workers. “Article 32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue direction, order or writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people” said the court.

Nilabati Behera vs the State of Orissa (1993)

In this case, the Supreme court granted compensation to the mother of a youth who had died after being taken into police custody. The court said that proceedings for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution were a “remedy available in public law.”

This judgment expanded on the 1983 judgment in the Rudal Shah case where the court awarded compensation to a man who had been illegally detained for 14 years. The Rudal Shah case made it clear that through the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court or the High Courts have powers to award compensation for the violation of fundamental rights.