Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Rajesh vs State on 21 February, 2012 cites

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978

"47. We have gone deep into the subject of Judicial activism and public interest litigation because it is often found that courts do not realize their own limits. Apart from the doctrine of separation of powers, courts must realize that there are many problems before the country which courts cannot solve, however much they may like to. It is true that the expanded scope of Articles 14 and 21 which has been created by this Court in various judicial decisions e.g. Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1978 SC 597, have given powerful tools in the hands of the Judiciary. However, these tools must be used with great circumspection and in exceptional cases and not as a routine manner. In particular, Article 21 of the Constitution must not be misused by the Courts to justify every kind of directive, or to grant every kind of claim of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 126 - Cited by 1969 - M H Beg - Full Document

Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985

For instance, this Court has held that the right to life under Article 21 does not mean mere animal existence, but includes the right to live with dignity vide Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180; D.T.C. vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress Union, AIR 1991 SC 101 (paras 223, 234, 259); Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory Delhi Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746. However, these decisions must be understood in a balanced way and not in an unrealistic sense. For example, there is a great deal of poverty in this country and poverty is destructive of most of the rights including the right to a dignified life. Can then the Court issue a general directive that poverty be abolished from the country because it violates Article 21 of the Constitution? Similarly, can the Court issue a directive that unemployment be abolished by giving everybody a suitable job? Can the Court stop price rise which now-a-days has become an alarming phenomenon in our country? Can the Court issue a directive that corruption be abolished from the country? Article 21 is not a 'brahmastra' for the judiciary to justify every kind of directive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 1065 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next