- The Hon’ble SC has, in a writ petition titled Sunil Kumar Rai vs State of Bihar has held that a mere delay in filing a writ petition would not be a sufficient ground for not entertaining that application, when it is clear that the fundamental rights of the citizens are at stake.
- In the instant case, the petitioners had approached the SC challenging a notification issued by the Bihar Government in 2016, wherein it was ordered that the Lohar Community in Bihar be given Scheduled Tribe Certificate. The petitioners contended that this stands in clear violation of the Constitution and on the basis of these certificates, various cases were lodged against them under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- The respondent State, on the other hand raised a technical objection that there was a delay of five years in seeking protection under Article 32 of the Constitution as the notification which is being challenged was issued in 2016.
- The Court noted that ordinarily, the Courts may insist that there be a cause of action and that a person does not become aggrieved merely because of the issuance of an instrument of law. To entertain such a challenge , the petitioner should necessarily be aggrieved.
- The Court relied upon the decision in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and ors. vs. Union of India and ors (2015) SCC wherein it was observed that when it comes to the violations of the fundamental right of life and personal liberty, delay without something more would not be enough to shut the doors of the Court on any petitioner.
- Thus, the Court was of the opinion that the delay, of itself, would not be a ground for vetoing an action under Article 32 of the Constitution when the fundamental rights are clearly at stake. The contention that the petitioners should have moved the HC first was also rejected by the Court.
- The Court observed that the right to approach the SC has also been regarded by the founding fathers as an inviolable fundamental right and has been protected under the provision of Article 32 of the Constitution as a part of judicial review and has been kept beyond the reach of the Parliament.
- The Court also observed that the Courts might refuse to entertain a plea under article 32, but the same is solely on the basis of self restraint which is exercised by the Court.
- Thus, the petition was allowed and the notification in question was quashed as being violative of the Constitution.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
