PIL - Public Interest Litigation
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 11 February 2010
This query is : Resolved
The Vana Pradesh is one of the States in India. Since last six months a regional agitation is going on for separate Statehood in this State. On January 25th 2008, the state police entered into a residential area of Haritha Nagar, in the capital city of the State suspecting some agitators are taking shelter in that locality. The police manhandled the residents of this colony and also opened fire. Due to this firing, several persons were injured and five persons were killed on the spot. The said incident was published in the local and national news papers and also covered by the electronic media.
“The Society for Citizen Rights”, a Registered Society striving for human rights, filed one PIL- (Public Interest Litigation) in the High Court of Vana Pradesh contending that the action of the police is violation of human rights and Art 21. of the Constitution of India. The State contended that the PIL is not maintainable as the Petitioner Society is having private interest. It is further contended by the State that the said Police are personally liable for their misdeeds and the State is not liable since the State never authorized the police to do so. But, the High court rejecting the contentions of the State, allowed this PIL and held that the action of the police is clear violation of the Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and thereby awarded the compensation of Rupees Two lakhs to each injured person and Rupees Ten Lakhs to the families of each killed person in the firing.
Aggrieved by the said ruling of the High Court, the State preferred SLP (Special Leave Petition) in the Honorable Supreme Court of India by contending that there is no violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and the State is not liable for the misdeeds of the police. The Supreme Court granted the Leave and posted the matter for final hearing and framed the following issues:
1. Whether the PIL is maintainable or not?
2. Whether there is violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of India or not?
3. Whether the State of Vana Pradesh is liable to pay the compensation to the Victims or Not?
4. Whether the compensation directed by the High Court is excessive or not?
I humbly request you to mention the Arguments from each side.
1.If Appointed as Advocate on behalf of State.
2.If Appointed as Advocate on behalf of “The Society for Citizen Rights”
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 February 2010
In the given case, you might have engaged the counsel for the side of the respondents and the State have also appointed its counsel while filing SLP so those both shall argue accordingly. It is not possible to write whole argument to be advanced by those two in this column. Entire facts and relevant law both as well as much time is required for your purpose.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 12 February 2010
sometimes it sounds funny that the students are not willing to go through the books.
dear u ve posted complete moot problem here.
first u tell us, what is ur opinion in the given case.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 February 2010
yes kiran Sir it is a moot court problem especially I am unable to comprehend the Argrumnets from the State side ..we have many good arguments and caselaws for Art.21 and Principal Agent Liability.. but the hard part is when it comes to defending the State ..I am missing how to frame arguments as obviously the Case is weak for State to Defend.. I will be thankful if throw some light . like case law & provisions in this regard.
Thank you,
Suresh
