So the Court laid down a criterion for the determination of “appropriate cases”, ie., the infringement must be patent, incontrovertible, gross and shocks the conscience of the court. It is being attempted here to make a fact analysis of some cases, where compensation was awarded under article 32, to expose and analyze this trend- the trend in choosing “appropriate cases”.
As already mentioned, in Rudul Sah case, violation was of right to life and personal liberty and the fact was already stated. In Sebastian M Hongray v. Union of India and Ors. , the State’s indifference to respond to the writ of Habeas Corpus was the issue. A person took away by army officers was later found missing and the Government failed to produce him, but provided the …show more content…
Whether in the instances cited, the right infringed was fundamental, violation was shocking and blatant, and the indifference of authorities towards human rights was patent and indefensible? In almost all cases they were is the answer. Indeed any direction to divert the justice seeker to discuss his cause with lower courts, without a helping hand in this clumsy system of justice administration would have been an embarrassment of the judiciary with hardly any parallel in its history.
In constitutional issues, the role of PIL became indispensable today. The compensatory jurisprudence makes no exception to this. PIL has been employed by the judiciary as an encouraging tool, a means to reach out to the disadvantaged sections of society. There are a number of cases arose out of PIL where compensation was awarded. Thus, PIL is aiding to add an extra momentum to the active judiciary eager to satisfy the demands of justice.
Notwithstanding the fact that this trend catalyzed justice dispensation, the note of caution expressed by the Supreme Court through Anand, J., in Nilabati Behera case and quoted in Common Cause case deserves to be mentioned here. His Lordship observed
As already mentioned, in Rudul Sah case, violation was of right to life and personal liberty and the fact was already stated. In Sebastian M Hongray v. Union of India and Ors. , the State’s indifference to respond to the writ of Habeas Corpus was the issue. A person took away by army officers was later found missing and the Government failed to produce him, but provided the …show more content…
Whether in the instances cited, the right infringed was fundamental, violation was shocking and blatant, and the indifference of authorities towards human rights was patent and indefensible? In almost all cases they were is the answer. Indeed any direction to divert the justice seeker to discuss his cause with lower courts, without a helping hand in this clumsy system of justice administration would have been an embarrassment of the judiciary with hardly any parallel in its history.
In constitutional issues, the role of PIL became indispensable today. The compensatory jurisprudence makes no exception to this. PIL has been employed by the judiciary as an encouraging tool, a means to reach out to the disadvantaged sections of society. There are a number of cases arose out of PIL where compensation was awarded. Thus, PIL is aiding to add an extra momentum to the active judiciary eager to satisfy the demands of justice.
Notwithstanding the fact that this trend catalyzed justice dispensation, the note of caution expressed by the Supreme Court through Anand, J., in Nilabati Behera case and quoted in Common Cause case deserves to be mentioned here. His Lordship observed