Principle of parents patriae
SUSHMA YADAV
(Querist) 24 November 2013
This query is : Resolved
HOW DOCTRINE OF PARENTS PATRIAE OPERATES IN TERMS OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION?????
(IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO SOVEREIGNTY TERM USED IN PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION)
AND THIS HAS BEEN ELABORATED IN CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UOI, (1990) 1 SCC 613
PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED AND WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY SC IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 November 2013
Sorry! I replied you to your another post thinking you are in problem.
Queries of these kind may kindly be discussed in forum section of this site.
Anirudh
(Expert) 24 November 2013
Dear Sushma,
Please note the Supreme Court did not elaborate anything on the doctrine of Parens partria in the case of Charan Lal Sahu.
However, there are a number of cases in which the doctrine has been explained. Some such cases are as under:
In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592 it has been inter-alia held that “In all constitutionally organised States, the State is permitted to sue in the courts not only with reference to its own proprietary or contractual interests, but also in behalf of the general interest of its citizen body. When appearing as plaintiff in the latter capacity it is known as Parens Patriae. This jurisprudential doctrine is stated in the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure as follows:
‘A State, like any other party, cannot maintain a suit unless it appears that it has such an interest in the subject-matter thereof as to authorise the bringing of the suit by it. In this connection however a distinction should be noted between actions by the people or by the State in a sovereign capacity, and suits founded on some pecuniary interest or proprietary right’. [ The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law by Westel W Willoughby, pp. 487-488] .
In Kakumanu Pedasubhayya v. Kakumanu Akkamma, 1959 SCR 1249:AIR 1958 SC 1042
The Sovereign as parens partriae has the power, and is indeed under a duty to protect the interests of minors, and that function has devolved on the Courts. In the discharge of that function, therefore, they have the power to control all proceedings before them wherein minors are concerned. They can appoint their own officers to protect their interests, and stay proceedings if they consider that they are vexatious.
In Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, 1959 Supp (2) SCR 583:AIR 1959 SC 951
In English law charitable trusts are synonymous with public trusts and what is called religious trust is only a form of charitable trust. The beneficiaries in a charitable trust being the general public or a section of the same and not a determinate body of individuals, the remedies for enforcement of charitable trust are somewhat different from those which can be availed of by beneficiaries in a private trust. In English law the Crown as parens patriae is the constitutional protector of all property subject to charitable trusts, such trusts being essentially matters of public concern. … One fundamental distinction between English and Indian law lies in the fact that there can be religious trust of a private character under Hindu law which is not possible in English law.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 25 November 2013
academic query.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 28 November 2013
I do agree with the advice of Anirudh.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 28 November 2013
Mr. Singh! The issue of love is not understandable for me.
SUSHMA YADAV
(Querist) 29 November 2013
thanks to all my query is solved
