Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These principles have been reiterated in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, in following words:

"The right of private citizen to file a complaint against a corrupt public servant must be equated with his right to access the court in order to set the criminal law in motion against a corrupt public official. The right of access, a constitutional right should not be burdened with unreasonable fetters. When a private citizen approaches a court of law against a corrupt public servant who is highly placed, what is at stake is not only a vindiction of personal grievance of that citizen but also the question of bringing orderliness in society and maintaining equal balance in the Rule of law."

In the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Raju, (2013) 10 SCC 465, the petitioner, in a public interest litigation had sought an authoritative pronouncement on the true purport and effect of different provisions of the JJ Act so as to take a juvenile out of the purview of the said Act. The High Court had declined to answer the question raised on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the JJ Act against the order as may have been passed by the Board. In SLP filed before the Apex Court, an objection was raised as regards its maintainability on the ground that it suffers from the vice of absence of locus on the part of the petitioner. While considering this objection the Apex Court has observed thus: