Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Article 282 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar vs Balkrishna Jagannath Kinikar And Ors. on 6 July, 1960
The earliest case in this regard was the one in
Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar v. Balkrishna Jagannath
Kinikar, reported in AIR 1961 Bom 167. The Bombay High
Court while dealing with this question and with specific
reference to Art. 282 of the Constitution has stated as
follows (at page 168) :
Bira Kishore Mohanty vs State Of Orissa on 8 January, 1974
In Bira Kishore Mohanty v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR
1975 Orissa 8, it was noticed that:
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
Page 11 of 20
C/WPPIL/142/2013 CAV JUDGEMNT
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.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
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.