ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE

PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE?

(1.1) POWER UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the

Constitution for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

2. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in any case of violation

of a fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of India as has been

observed in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India 1 amongst the many

others.

3. The fundamental rights provided in the Indian Constitution are guaranteed against any

executive and legislative action. Any executive or legislative action which infringes upon

fundamental rights of any person or any group of persons can be declared as void by the

courts under Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. The constitution makers conferred on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for

the speedy enforcement of fundamental rights and made the right to approach the Supreme

Court for such enforcement itself a fundamental right.

5. In this case the actions of the Central government are arbitrary and there is no rational

nexus between the classification made and the object that sought to be achieved

Hence, the petitioner is justified in challenging the authority of the Central Government and

filing a writ petition for the same under Art. 32.

(1.1.1) That this is a matter of public interest

In 1981, Justice PN Bhagwati in SP Gupta v Union of India 2, articulated the concept of PIL

as follows, “Any member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction,
1
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India 1951 AIR 41, 1950 SCR 869.
2
SP Gupta v Union of India Transfer Case (civil) 19 of 1981
order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 an in case any breach of fundamental rights

of such persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking judicial

redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of

persons.”

The petitioner has filed a public interest litigation for protection and enforcement of public at

large and seeks remedy for fundamental rights that have been deprived for them.

(1.1.2) The Petitoner Has Locus Standi To File A Petition

1. It was made clear in Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary3 that only a person ‘acting bona

fide ’and ‘having sufficient public interest’ in the proceeding of public interest litigation will

have alone the locus standi but not a person for personal gain or political motive or any

oblique consideration.

2. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public

interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out

violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for

personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

3. The petitioners contend that provisions of UAPA are manifestly arbitrary and

violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica. It is further argued that the

anti-conversion laws passed by the state assemblies inter-alia on the grounds that the said

legislation supress an individual’s liberty and impact their religious freedom.

4. Hence, it is humbly submitted that since there has been a violation of the fundamental

rights, the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India bought as a Public Interest Litigation.

3
Janata Dal v H.S. Chaudhary 1992 (4) SCC 305
 (1.2) POWER UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION

(1.2.1) The Petitioners have Locus Standi to approach this Hon’ble Court

Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant in discretion Special leave to Appeal from

any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or

made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. It is humbly submitted that powers

under Article 136 can be exercised against any kind of judgement or order which is causing

injustice to any party, and to serve the need, the power under Article 136 is unfettered4.

In the case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees5, the Supreme Court

commented on the developing trend of settling private disputes under Article 136 and it said

that it would become necessary for the Supreme Court to intervene in private controversies if

such matters have not received sufficient attention from the lower courts or if a decision has

led to grave injustice. It is submitted that Article 136 is an over-riding power where under

the Court may generally step in to impart justice to remedy injustice.6

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that there has been a serious miscarriage of

justice caused by the dismissal of the matter by the Hon’ble High Court of Panchal. The

Petitioners humbly request this Hon’ble Court to correct the same and hear this matter.

(1.2.2) Arguendo, if it is assumed the Petition is not maintainable, this Hon’ble Court
can still hear the matter

For the purposes of arguments, if it assumed that the current petition is not maintainable, it is

humbly submitted that the width of the discretion of this Hon’ble Court may extend to a

situation where although the appeals are found not to be maintainable, yet, the Supreme Court

may decide on the merit of the appeals.

4
Durga Shankar v. Raghu Raj, AIR 1954 SC 520
5
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustee, Port of Mumbai, (2002) 3 SCC 214
6
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036
Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the situation requires immediate

intervention by this Hon’ble Court to avoid any further injustice to the Petitioners.

(1.2.3) Scope of powers of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution

The power has been held to be plenary, limitless, adjunctive and unassailable 7. The Supreme

Court can use the powers under Article 136 to impart justice and remedy any injustice7. The

Supreme Court with regard to scope of Article 136 held that it is a residual power which

enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgement or order of any court or tribunal in

India in its discretion8.

In Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar 8, the Supreme Court has held that it is open to the

Supreme Court to interfere with the findings fact by the High Court if the High Court has

acted perversely or otherwise improperly.

Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court to hear the instant matter because the

High Court has been gravely wrong in not exercising its inherent jurisdiction in the instant

matter.

The instant petition satisfies all grounds required for an appeal under Article 136.

It is humbly submitted that if special leave is granted and the same is restricted to a particular

question, the Court is not constrained in any manner to restrict itself to hearing only those

matters, insofar as an opportunity of being heard is giving to the opposite party also 9. Hence,

it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court can dwell into all matters, including question of fact

and decide this matter on merits grant justice.

7
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
8
Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3123
9
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Darbbara Singh, AIR 2006 SC 387
 (1.2.4) Exhaustion of Remedies:

The Supreme Court has imposed on itself a restriction that before invoking the jurisdiction of

the Court under Article 136, the aggrieved party must exhaust any remedy which maybe

available under the law before the lower appellate authority or the High Court10.

In the instant case, the Appellants have indeed exhausted all local remedies by approaching

the High Court of Panchal. The only remedy available for the Appellants is this Hon’ble

Supreme Court and hence, it is humbly requested of this Hon’ble Court to grant justice to the

Petitioners.

Grounds of rejection:

The limitation on exercise of the discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution

has been laid down by the Supreme Court itself. In Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of

Kerala and Another11, it was held that a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal may

be rejected for several reasons, some of which are as follows:

(i) If the Petition is barred by time;

(ii) If the Petition is presented in a defective manner;

(iii) The petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition;

(iv) The conduct of the petitioner disentitling him to any indulgence by the court;

The question raised by the petitioner for consideration by this Court being not fit for

consideration or deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court;

In the instant case, it is obvious on a prima-facie level that the petitioners have no grounds

on which the instant petition for special leave could be rejected. The questions raised by the

Appellants involve substantial questions of law, as would be shown in the subsequent

submissions, and the same requires to be adjudicated by this Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10
Nirma Ltd v. Lurgi Lenteges Energietechnik Gmbh, AIR 2002 SC 3695
11
Kunhayammed and Others VS. State of Kerala and Another 1996 (7) SCC 1