Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every HC shall have powers, throughout the territories
in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any government, within those territories directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and
for any other purpose.
The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 are available to citizens, i.e., living
natural persons having Shadowmoors citizenship. A non-citizen cannot challenge validity of
laws under Article 19.1 For the purpose of Article 19 (1), a company incorporated under
Companies Act of Shadowmoor, 2013 has been held to be a non-citizen. 2 Ginger Productions
Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act of Shadowmoor, 2013.
It was held though a company has no fundamental right under Article 19, a shareholder and
the managing director have the right under the Article19 (1) provided they have Indian
itizenship.3 But Mr. Jaden who owns Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. is an American Citizen.
Further, the petitioners were vested with the statutory right of approaching the revising
committee under Section 24 of the Shadowmoor Cinematograph Act, 1952 which provides
that:
24. Revising Committee:
(1) On receipt of the record referred to in Rule 22, the Chairman may, of his own motion
or on the request of the applicant, refer it to a Revising Committee constituted for the
purpose.
The petitioners have not approached the revising committee which makes their intention
questionable. A high court does not ordinarily issue a writ when an alternative efficacious
remedy is available. Under Article 226, the high court does not decide disputes for which
remedies under the general laws are available. Ordinary remedies are not sought to be
replaced by Article 226.
The principle has been stated by the Supreme Court of India as follows:
It is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant,
he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the
high court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ; but the existence of an adequate legal
remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs.... 6 Article
226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures.7
4 tate Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1963 SC 1811
Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and
circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful
veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social
justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of
genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal
vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member
of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private
motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms that monitor at times
from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with
judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a
good deal as well to enrich them. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or
cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at
the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.9
Hence, given the above mentioned grounds and settled law principles petitioners stand for
Public Cause would be highly unjustified.
7 Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. v. Tadi Adhinarayana Reddy, AIR 1997 SC 2189