Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background:
According to the traditional interpretation only a person who had suffered a legal wrong himself
could take recourse to the court of law for relief. The new position is that if a legal wrong is done
to a person or a class of persons who, by reasons of poverty or any other disability, cannot
approach a court of law for justice, it is open to any public-spirited individual or a social action
group to file a petition on his or their behalf. This new approach to bring justice to the poor and
the oppressed, it is hoped, will give meaning to the constitutional objectives of socioeconomic
justice for all.1

Public interest litigation (PIL) is liberalized form of doctrine of locus-standi, which is related
with the right to access to the court. "Now PIL has been popular in Nepal. PIL has been regarded
as one of the modern jurisprudential expositions. Since the recent past Nepalese legal sector has
been enthusiastic to introduce PIL in the legal system. Some lawyers have made vigorous efforts
for its application."2 Locus-standi means legal capacity to invoke the justice, without which no
one can approach to the court. It was very difficult to have justice to the bigger deprived class of
society. Only aggrieved person was entitled to approach to the court which could not secure the
justice for weaker section of the society. Basic objective of PIL doctrine is to secure the justice to
the weaker section of the society and to make easy access for socio-economic justice too. Thus
this paper intends to study the reasoning behind the development of PIL doctrine, its
international practice, Nepalese practice and its contribution towards legal system.

With the growth of judicial power in the contemporary society judges in their part started
realizing that since the traditional litigation process is highly expensive, time consuming and
dilatory in process, it is for them to devise and innovate some less formal and people friendly
procedure of justice. It was this realization that accounted for the emergence of poverty
jurisprudence which made the judges sensitized to the plight and problems of the marginalized
1
Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Fr. P.D. Mathew, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi available at
http://www.ignou.ac.in/upload/bswe-02-block6-unit-29-small%20size.pdf assessed on 19/7/2021
2
Bishal Khanal, Regenaration of Nepalese Law, Bhrikuti Academic Publications Kathmandu, 2000, p158.

1
masses and thus eventually led to the birth of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The underlying
philosophy of Public Interest Litigation is to bring justice within the reach of every man and
woman and at the doorstep of every needy person. It is guided by the central objective of making
basic human rights meaningful to the large masses of people.
The term 'Public Interest Litigation' ordinarily means a legal action which is initiated before a
court of law for the purpose of enforcement of general interest of the public. 3 PIL is a creative
judicial weapon innovated by the apex judiciary through the means of judicial activism. It aims
at protecting and vindicating the rights and interests of the marginalized sections of the society
who are socially backward, politically unconscious and economically oppressed and exploited
and, for this reason, who cannot approach the court to seek remedial relief. PIL also
contemplates legal proceedings for vindication or enforcement of the fundamental or legal rights
of a group of people or community who are incapable of enforcing them for various reasons like
indigence, incapacity, illiteracy, unawareness or ignorance of law. It is in this context that Justice
PN Bhagwati described PIL as "the strategic arm of the legal aid movement"..."which is intended
to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of
humanity".4 Thus the court has developed a new paradigm of judicial process which envisages an
affirmative proactive role of the judiciary for ensuring access to justice for those who cannot
invoke the judicial process for a variety of reasons. This could be made possible chiefly by
relaxing the rule of 'locus standi' and allowing public spirited persons or organizations to enter
the court on their behalf for the sake of seeking judicial relief for their maladies.

1.2 Statement of the problem:

Following questions are setout as statement of the problem for the purpose of study;
a) What is the public interest litigation?

b) How Nepalese court is practicing PIL and contributing to the legal system?

1.3 Rationale:

Public interest litigation is one of the major aspects while studying Comparative Jurisprudence.
The whole motto behind PIL is to facilitate and secure justice. So the court becomes more

3
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary, AIR 1993 SC 893.
4
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.

2
assertive and positive rather than passive to determine the facts. It is considered as in instrument
of which attends legal aid to poor masses and weaker section of the society. PIL always induces
for Judiciary activism. In every democratic constitution the concept of PIL can be seen and
Article 138 of the present Constitution has made significant provisions related to PIL.

1.4 Objectives of the study:

Basic objectives of this study are to be familiarizing with the doctrine of PIL, to know its
international and local practice and its contribution to the Nepalese legal system.

1.5 Review of literature:

Different texts have been consulted to know the definition, development and international
practices of PIL doctrine for carrying out this paper. Several Nepal law journals and concern
Reporters have also been taken as a primary source of information to know the International and
Nepalese practice of PIL, where foreign and our supreme court has decided so many PIL issues
in different cases.

1.6 Methodology

This term paper has adopted the Doctrinal Method of research. It is based on available library
materials such as books, journals, magazines, web sites etc. Therefore this study is based on
descriptive method.

1.7 Organization of the Study:

This paper is categorized in four parts. Basic introduction has been provided under first chapter.
Chapter second of this paper has tried to see the global practice of public interest litigation (PIL)
whereas Third Chapter deals with national practice with regard to PIL. The Fourth chapter has
tried to analyze and draw a conclusion of study.

3
 Chapter 2

Global Practice

2.1 International Practice of PIL

Practice of PIL under international practice can be taken from various countries, out of them
following few countries are taken in consideration;

a) Public Interest Litigation in UK.

England is the progenitor of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and of the strict doctrine of

locus-standi. Indeed the cause of development of Indian case law was outcome of this
doctrine. However the changed circumstances of 1970s forced England to liberalize the
doctrine of locus-standi. Lord Denning is single handedly responsible for this
liberalization.

Traditional rule in England was that a person who invoked the jurisdiction of the court
could be heard only if he had suffered a 'legal injury' as a consequence of the violation of
his 'legal' right.

English practice was slightly different which began to hear the public interest cases
earlier to the American courts. In R.v.Manchester Corporation5 case of 1911 Kings'
Bench Division held that a person can reserve his right of locus-standi for his special
interest.

In 1957, Lord Denning in R.v. Thomas Magistrate's court, ex parte Greenbaum departed
from old test, the case involved a pitch in a street market which was awarded to a seller
of jellied eels rather than a newspaper seller. Since the newspaper seller had no legal
right to the pitch he was barred by the strict doctrine of locus-standi. However, Lord

5
Khanal, Supra note 2 at 161.

4
 Denning held that he had locus-standi and quashed the order of the magistrates awarding
the pitch.6

In R. v. Paddington valuation officer, ex parte Peachey Property Corpn. Ltd. a rate payer
alleged that the property valuation list of the whole area had not been properly prepared.
He was however not able to show that his own property was rated wrongly. Inspite of
this, Lord Denning accorded him locus-standi and held-

"The question is whether the Peachey Property Corporation are "person aggrieved" so as
to be entitled to ask for certiorari or mandamus. Mr. Blain contended that they are not
persons aggrieved because, even Paddington area, it would not make a pennyworth of
difference to them …. But I do not think grievances are to be measured in pounds,
shillings and pence. If a rate payer or other person finds his name included in a valuation
list which is invalid, he is entitled to come to the court and apply to have it quashed. He is
not to be put off by the plea that he has suffered no damage, any more than the voters
were in Ashby v. White. The court would not listen, off course, to a mere busybody who
was interfering in things which did not concern him. But it will listen to anyone whose
interests are affected by what has been done….So here it will listen to any ratepayer who
complains that the list is invalid"

b) Public Interest Litigation in USA.

United States can be said to be the originator of the concept of public interest litigation.
In the U.S. this branch of law is subsumed under the term 'Public Interest Law'. 7 The
American courts were unable to impart justice going beyond the letter of law. They were
bound to work within the framework of the traditional theory of rule of law (Justice
according to the letter of law). This idea of rule of law was certainly stronger than that of
the court's power and courage under the Anglo-American legal system. But some
courageous judges in the USA were waiting for an opportunity to bestow much more
consensuses in favor of the courts (to avoid unfair legal barriers made by the legislature).
And, the courts had to find or develop a rule, which could be an alternative one to those

6
Dr. B L Wadehra, Public Interest Litigation, Universal Law publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2003, p 44.
7
Ibid.

5
 affected by the damage of public goods. The step could be a process towards reforms and
modernization to minimize popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice8

American courts were burdened with increasing number of pending cases which had
increased cost for legal services in the same proportion. It created a massive
dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. Hence, the circumstance compelled the
courts to say something or to develop a third rule of locus-standi other than early rule for
right of locus-standi of individuals and right of locus-standi of juristic persons.

American Supreme Court gradually began to liberalize strict procedural rules in

appropriate case in the late 1960 with the changing environment. Landmark case of
Gideon v. Wainuwright9 the court treated a handwritten scrawl as a petition.

In 1968, in the case of Flast v. Cohen10 the court allowed taxpayer and ratepayer standing
to complain against the spending of federal funds on religious school even though the
plaintiff did not allege that he was sustaining an injury greater than the average taxpayer.

U.S. Supreme Court in 1970 further took step in the case of Association of Processing
Service Organization v. Camp11 where judicial protection was for the first time given to
diffuse rights and interests. The next step was taken in the case of Office of
communication of the United Church of Christ v. F.C.C. where the expression 'person
aggrieved' was understood in a new way as being any person who has 'genuine interest' in
the subject matter rather than a 'legal grievance'. Thereafter even the requirement of
'genuine interest' was replaced by only a 'special' or even 'sufficient' interest in the matter.

c) Public Interest Litigation in India.

India has been found to be made a significant contribution towards development of public
interest litigation and basically India has developed PIL as independent social action
jurisprudence. Significant role played by Upendra Boxi to develop PIL as a social action
jurisprudence in India never can be forgotten in this regard.

8
Khanal, Supra note 2 at 160.
9
Wadehra, Supra note 6 at 39.
10
Ibid.
11
Id.

6
 In the subsequent days, Indian Courts also worked for the institutional development of
public interest jurisprudence. Mainly, four factors were responsible to introduce the
concept of PIL in the Indian legal system. The first factor was the large number of arrears
in the Indian courts by which justice had been felt not easily accessible. Second was the
costly legal and judicial service which normal people could not afford and sometimes
unable to approach the court. The third factor responsible for it can be said as the
commission of some socialist judges in the Supreme Court. Because the idea of those
judges was directed to secure socialist goals of Indian constitution through socio-
economic justice basically to the down-trodden. And finally, it was done in search of a
suitable alternative to the adversary model of rule of law and indigenous "Panchayati
Nyaya..

Litigation is undertaken for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public
duty, protecting social, collective, diffused rights and interests or vindicating public
interest, any citizen who is acting bonafied and who has sufficient interest, has to be
accorded standing. What is sufficient interest to give standing to a member of the public
would have to be determined by the court in each individual case. It has necessarily to be
left to the discretion of the court.12

Several cases are being practiced in Indian courts with regard to the Public Interest
Litigation and its development is directed towards social action jurisprudence in India.

12
S.P.Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 S.C. 149.

7
 Chapter 3

National Practice

3.1 PIL Practice in Nepal

Practice of Public interest litigation (PIL) has been placed in a popular form in Nepal. PIL has
been regarded as one of the modern jurisprudential expositions. Since the recent past Nepalese
legal sector has been enthusiastic to introduce PIL in the legal system. Some lawyers have made
vigorous efforts for its application.

Provision of PIL concept is found in Muluki Act 2020 itself however "Nepal is probably the
learner and beginner to practice this concept. One might say that the time has come to develop an
alternative rule of locus standi other than the right of locus standi of individual and juristic
person. But going through the law and constitution one may argue that right of locus-standi has
been sufficiently liberalized und all the people of Nepal have secured this right through the
Constitution. And a question may he raised if the Constitution has taken sufficiently broader
approach toward public interest and there is no need to liberalize the rule of locus-standi."13

Nepal is probably a learner and beginner in the area of Public Interest Litigation. Nevertheless,
the Nepali system has taken some definite steps to institutionalize the jurisprudence of Public
Interest Litigation. The concept of PIL has not only been recognized rather it has been also
accorded constitutional recognition.14 The introduction of the Ninth Amendment to the National
Civil Code (Muluki Ain) in 1986 can be treated as the starting point of the concept of PIL in the
Nepali legal regime. This Amendment made a provision for the institution of a suit by a person
in regard to matters involving public interest. Section 10 of the chapter on the Court Procedure
(Adalti Bandobastako) grants 'locus standi' to an individual to move the court on behalf of the
public at large by securing permission from the court in regard to issues which involve public
interest or concern. However, since this power is generally exercised by the courts of first

13
Khanal, Supra note 2 at 163.
14
DR. HARI BANSH TRIPATHI, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW IN NEPAL
(EVOLUTION & EXPERIMENTS), 301, (Pairavi Prakashan-Kathmandu - 2002).

8
instance, which do not have writ jurisdiction in practice, this has not proved much effective in
securing public good. The movement of PIL in other jurisdictions, particularly in neighboring
India, was bound to influence the Nepali legal community. The 1990 constitution drafting
committee, comprising mainly legal professionals and led by a sitting Supreme Court Judge
Vishwa Nath Upadhaya, felt the need for granting constitutional status to the innovative strategy
of PIL. Unlike in other countries where the justices had to display activism in order to explore a
judicial basis for Public Interest Litigation within their constitutional or legal framework, the
1990 constitution specifically designated a role for the Supreme Court to entertain PIL petitions
in matters of public interest. Article 88(2) of the constitution empowered the Supreme Court "to
issue necessary and appropriate orders" also "for the settlement of any constitutional or legal
question involved in any dispute of public interest or concern" or for the enforcement of such a
right. This provision of Article 88(2) elaborating the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the apex court
has been virtually lifted from the 1990 constitution and transplanted in the present Interim
Constitution of Nepal, 2063 (2006 AD). Here, it will not be out of context to refer to the question
raised by this writer in his book titled Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review in Nepal
(Evolution and Experiments) in regard to the relevance and practice of PIL in Nepali legal
regime.43 Since there is a specific provision about PIL in the National Code and there is also
specific stipulation of PIL jurisdiction of the apex court in the Nepali constitution itself, is there
any scope or relevance left for PIL in Nepal in the sense PIL is practiced in other jurisdictions,
which do not have specific legal or constitutional provision for PIL. In the Nepali legal system
PIL does not seem to be necessarily dependent on the discretion of judges or judicial activism.
Since our law and the constitution specially mandate for the PIL jurisdiction, it can be rightly
said that the Anglo-American model of PIL has lost much of its substance and relevance in the
Nepali context. But the difference ends there. Because both in the Anglo-American model of PIL
as well as the Nepali model of PIL, practical, realist and sensitive approach of the judges
handling the PIL cases are needed in common to obtain effective relief or redress in the public
interest.

Some of leading Nepalese cases related with PIL issues decided by Supreme Courts can be seen
as follows;

9
3.2 Cases Review:-

a) Dol Prasad v. Ministry of Forest15

Petition was filed opposing fires in the jungle destroy public property and also add
pollution to the environment. HMG was requested to control those harmful acts. The
court issued an order HMG to protect the property and environment but did not agree
with this contention and issued an order by stating that the party has not been directly
affected by the act of blaze of fire in the jungle and, therefore, he is not liable to create
right of locus-standi to file the case. The petition was dismissed.

b) Radheshyam Adhikari v. HM G and others16

Supreme Court has refused to follow open policy on the rule of locus-standi in the
matters of public interest. The Court held that those who came to file the litigation under
Art 88(2) must have their "meaningful relation" or "substantial interest" in the issue. If
the court found that the issue did not relate with public interest and concern it can
dismiss it even in the preliminary hearings. This procedure would be due as well as
justifiable.

c) Yogi Narahaninath v.HMG 17

The petitioner claimed that the decision allowing the use of public land to establish a
Medical College at the bank of Narayani river would affect the environment including
forest and water animals. The Supreme Court held that the hospital waste would
reversely affect the water as well as water animals of the holy Narayani river. So the
Court prohibited establishment of the Medical College at the bank of the Narayani River
of Chitawan District.

15
Khanal, Supra note 2 at 168.
16
Nepal Kanoon Patrika 2048 P. 810.
17
Nepal Kanoon Patrika 2053 P. 3.

10
 d) Bal Krishna Neupane v. HMG18

The Ministry of Water Resources denied to provide agreements and other documents
made between the Nepal and India regarding Tanakpur barrage and petition was filed
for. It was a clear violation of the right to information guaranteed by the Constitution.
The petitioner also claimed that sharing of water and other hydro resources between two
countries is a matter of public interest and urged the Court to accept the petition in the
form of P1L. Court accepted petition and held that the Government is liable to provide
the copies of agreements and documents to the petitioner. Denial to provide those
documents would amount to violation of right to information guaranteed by the
Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal.

e) Surya Dhungel v. Godavari Marble Industiries19

In the case of Surya Dhugel V. Godawari Marble Industies. 16 the court treated the
petition as PIL according to Article 26(4) of the constitution but refused to issue the writ
on the ground that the writ of Mandamus is rationally issued only to enforce legal duty.
And since the petitioner could not specify any particular law, which would impose legal
duty to the respondent the writ of merited that the responded was not under any legal
duty arising out of life dispatch enunciating the doctrine of healthy environment as a
part of right to life for the first time.

In Surya Prasad Sharma V Godavari marble industries pvt.ltd. and others case
Supreme court conclude that environment problems is public concern subject and this is
subject of Public right and concern so there is no any doubt about meaningful relation
between applicants and dispute .

In this case the Supreme Court has interpreted in this way.

According to the article 11(1) of constitution the provision is that no one shall be
deprived from life, due to the cause of pollution there is danger in human life. Creation
of pollution deprived life of people and to get rid of that kind of environment is the right

18
Supreme Court Bulletin Vol 1 N. 11.
19
Nepal Kanoon Patrika(Golden Jubilee Issue) p. 169.
1

11
 of people. Due to this reason conservation of environment indirectly related with human
life that is why the subject is related with article 11(1) of the constitution of kingdom of
Nepal 1990.

Actually environment problem is the subject of public issue and interest and due to the
cause of it is the subject matter of public rights and interest there is not any dispute
about the locus standi of the petitioner.

Clean and healthy environment is of the essence organ of life so the right of clean and
healthy environment is also essence for right to life.

It is very much necessary to make special law for the conservation of environment in
effective way and also necessary to enforce because without law any work doesn't be
managed and law is essential for the crime and sentence for environment.

In absence of law to make fine and ordered can not be given. There are some scattered
laws in present context which is not enough and effective so law should be made
including all dimensions of environment, for this special law should be made and
enforced.

Minerals act, 2042 and section 11(a) added by amendment of 2052-2-5 is the important steps on
to prevent environment pollution but that act would be enacted only when HMG declared the
date but HMG did not declared the date of amendment and on 2052-2-5 there is the first
amendment on the act. Legislative body makes law and executive body doesn't enforce it doesn't
mean that executive body doesn't work as per the feelings of legislative body.

Mandamus is issued to obey the legal duty, but petitioner cannot show that the article of this
types of law had stated the legal duty and not been obeyed. It must be said by petitioner that this
officer of organization had this kind of legal duty or officer did not obey the legal duty.

12
 Chapter 4

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

4.1 Analysis

The fact has come out from above study that importance of doctrine of PIL is always related with
the liberalization of right of locus-standi. It also is found working for transforming the judiciary
in a different position where judiciary could function and deliver justice even beyond the letter of
law. It was one of the major steps which provided sufficient rooms for ambitious and bold judges
to break the barrier of traditional concept of rule of law. Later on this concept developed as a
concept of extra ordinary jurisdictions for legal remedies. If we see the Nepalese position it
seems different Nepalese concept of PIL is recognized by Nepalese legislation constitution both
for remedies to the issues of public interest. So the role of PIL has no place in Nepalese system
as other have. The court has to take cautious approach, because still they have to define which
issues are relating to public interest and which are not under Article 138 of constitution of Nepal.

Public interest concept is being taken in Nepal as procedures safe from being instable, uncertain
and discretion of judges. Law has left very less room for court being activist by means of public
interest procedure. However it is said that the court has been indirectly influenced by the
popularity and publicity approach rather than that of public interest approach. Therefore, the
court always has to take a cautious approach to keep itself free from criticism. Since the
inception of the PIL the courts are blamed that they are either directly or indirectly influenced by
means of political or popularity or publicity or personal element.

Public Interest Litigation is, as justice Krishna Iyer has rightly said, "a product of the creative
judicial engineering". It is a strategy of giving the poor and the oppressed meaningful access to
justice. It is virtually a rejection of the 'laissez faire' notions of traditional jurisprudence in order
to cope with new important rights which are 'diffuse and meta individual'. The liberalized notion
of standing has been instrumental behind the birth of Public Interest Litigation, which allows
third party intervention in the judicial process on behalf of the dispossessed, disadvantaged and
deprived masses. Unlike the Adversary litigation, Public Interest Litigation is a kind of

13
cooperative and collaborative litigation involving the court, the petitioner and the government or
a public authority, and each of them share in common the realization of a statutory or
constitutional commitment to social justice, the rule of law, good governance and basic human
rights. Over the years Public Interest Litigation has been pursued for the purpose of redressing
public injuries, enforcing public duties, protecting special, collective or diffuse rights or
vindicating public interest. In various jurisdictions in the accordance with their needs and
requirements, the strategy of PIL has been used to fight against violations of human rights,
dishonest or efficient administration and environmental degradation and deprivation of the weak
and poor. With the increasing complexity of the modern society, PIL activism is fast moving into
new areas arousing some heightened expectations not only for vindicating the governmental
commitment to the welfare of the oppressed and the victimized but also for effectuating social
control maintaining communal harmony, preserving the rule of law and preventing the decline in
public morality. Public Interest Litigation has thus finally come to stay and now cannot easily be
wished away.

Public interest issues should be taken as addressing the issues from the perspective of societal
security/welfare. We should believe that societal empowerment automatically empowers to an
individual but individual empowerment can not empower society. So PIL can be taken as a
different approach to secure individual interest. Since PIL should be applied on the basis of
social action theory, where locus-standi should be forgotten and any body from a group should
have right to litigation if such group is empowered by constitution.

In crux, PIL has been developed as a different approach for empowerment of the weaker and
deprived class of society everywhere as per nature of that particular society. American and
English courts are not referring social action theory with regard to the PIL practice where as
Indian and Nepal are referring social action theory in PIL practices. Our supreme court has
referred existence of "meaningful relation" in the issue in the case of Radheshyam Adhikari v.
HMG, which can be taken as a unique element introduced by Nepalese court with regard to the
PIL. Element of "meaningful relation" avoids strict rule of locus-standi also it prohibits
unnecessary flow of cases in the name of PIL.

14
4.2 Conclusion

In conclusion, we can say that public interest litigation is one process of litigation where court
facilitates the people to utilize or exercise the basic human rights, fundamental constitutional
rights or other legal rights who cannot follow the court process individually but other persons or
groups initiates for the case for the benefit of that person.

Public interest litigation is alternative concept of old principle of Locus Standi .It is related
sociological school of jurisprudence .If there is question about protection of interest of majority
people there is no need of aggrieved person to file the case .This is one means of getting justice
for poor, underprivileged or marginalized people .This is one major aspect of the justice
especially in the democratic era. PIL helps to provide social, economic and political justice for
the people.

PIL has very important role in judiciary activism .PIL us such an area in which the judicial
activism has got full expression. Judicial activism plays positive role for protecting the people
who have been denied equality in true sense.PIL has been taken as a liberalization of doctrine of
locus-standi everywhere as per nature of their society. It also has been taken as tools for
empowerment of weaker and deprived class of society in socio-economic justice. Right to
litigation is provided on different basis as per different country. Social action theory is being
applied in India and Nepal for PIL application.

Pervasive numbers of PIL cases are being practiced in Nepal which ultimately enriches Nepalese
PIL jurisprudence. Case filing tendency influencing from "popularity interest" should completely
discourage and the prescription of element of "meaningful relation" in Radheshyam Adhikari's
case has tried to discourage it. But judiciary always should take precaution from misusing
tendency of discretionary power from time to time. Therefore, it is said that PIL should he
limited only within the matter of "public interest".

15
 Bibliography

 Bishal Khanal, Regenaration of Nepalese Law, Bhrikuti Academic Publications

Kathmandu, 2000
 Dr. B L Wadehra, Public Interest Litigatin, Universal Law publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2003,
 Bal Bahadur Mukhia Comparative Jurisprudence Malati Mukhia and Agam Mukhia
2004
 Constitution of Nepal 2072
 Muluki Ain, 2020
 AIR 1965 Kerala
 AIR 1952 SC and AIR 1982 S.C
 Nepal Kanoon Patrika 2048, 2050, 2053 and Golden jubilee issue
 Supreme Court Bulletin Vol 1 N. 11
 Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Fr. P.D. Mathew, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi
available at http://www.ignou.ac.in/upload/bswe-02-block6-unit-29-small%20size.pdf

16
1