3. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE?

1. It is humbly and most respectfully submitted that maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of
fundamental rights can be questioned only on the ground of laches 1, delays and acquiescence2, drafting of
petition in an undignified manner,3 malicious in nature,4where disputed question of facts are involved or
question of law has been raised in the abstract 5or enforcement of private or contractual rights are sought
to be enforced 6.In the instant case, none of the aforementioned exception exists. The petition has been
filed in time, question of facts are involved and fundamental rights are sought to be enforced. The
impugned law comes within the purview of Article 13 7. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme court is
competent to decide the legality of the Act under Art. 32.

3.1 RESPONDENT HAS LOCUS STANDI IN THE INSTANT CASE

2. Black’s Law Dictionary defines Public Interest as: “Something in which the public, the community at
large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It
does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which
may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or
national Government.8

3. In P. v. Paddingtom Valuation Officer Ex. P. Peachey Property Corporation Limited: “Every citizen
has standing to invite the Court to prevent some abuse of power and in doing so, he may claim to be
regarded not as a meddlesome busybody but as a public benefactor. A rate-prayer, likewise, has a
particular grievance if the rating list is invalidly made, even though the defects will make no difference to
him financially”.9

4.In the case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India 10 the Hon’ble Court held: The proceedings in a public
interest litigation are intended to vindicate and effectuate the public interest by prevention of violation of
the right, constitutional or statutory, of sizable segments of the society, which owing to poverty,
ignorance, social and economic disadvantages cannot themselves assert and quite often not even aware of
those rights. The technique of public interest litigation serves to provide an effective remedy to enforce
these group rights and interests

5.The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of
law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ‘PIL’
means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in
1
Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 470
2
R. v. Diary Produce Quota Tribunal (1990) 2 AII ER 434 : (1990) 2 WLR 1302
3
M.K Mallick, Law and Practice, 47 (12th ed., 2012,
4
S.A. Kini v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 893 : (1985) 3 SCR 754 : 1985 Supp. SCC 122(¶ 4) ; R.V. Customs and Excise
Commissioner ex parte Cooke and Stevenson, 1 AII ER 1068 (1970, Queen Bench Division,Divisional Court),
5
(Indian legal and Economic forum v. U.O.I (1997) 10 SCC 728)
6
(Satish Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250..)
7
(Art. 13 (3), the Constitution of India, 1950 ; Brig Guardian Singh Uban v. Union of India. 1997 AIHC 886 (DEL) ;
Dalpat Rai Bhandari v. President of India, AIR 1993 SC 1 ; D.D Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, (9th
ed., 2014).
8
Garner B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009)
9
(1966) 1 QB 380(400).
10
(1988) 4 SCC 226: AIR 1988 SC 2211: JT 1988 (3) SC 765
which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected11.

6. The Supreme Court in BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India 12 observed that: Public interest
litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the India judicial process in 1970. It will not be
incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire
need for it. At that stage it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of
the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were
unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature
and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for
the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own
interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said,

3.2 That Concept Of Locus Standi Is Foreign To Criminal Jurisprudence

7.It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Locus Standi of the complainant is a concept
foreign to criminal jurisprudence13. Any citizen can lodge a first information report or file a complaint and
set the machinery of criminal law in motion and his locus standi to do so cannot be questioned. If the
offence for which prosecution is being launched is an offence against the society and not merely an
individual wrong, any member of the society must have locus to initiate a prosecution and also to resist
the withdrawal of such prosecution, if initiated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the narrow
concept of ‘cause of action’ and ‘person aggrieved’ and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in
some jurisdictions.14

8.It is a well-recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law
into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. 15 There is
nothing in the Code showing an intention to confine the prosecution to the person directly injured. 16

9.It is humbly submitted that the general principle of nearly universal application is founded on a policy
that an offence i.e. an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force is not
merely an offence committed relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against
society.17 The society for its orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the
offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the State representing
the people which would exclude any element of private vendetta or vengeance. 18 If such is the public
policy underlying penal statutes, who brings an act or omission made punishable by law to the notice of
the authority competent to deal with it, is immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the

11
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary(1992) 4 SCC 305: AIR 1993 SC 892: 1993 AIR SCW 248: 1993 Cr LJ 600
12
(2002) 2 SCC 333: AIR 2002 SC 350
13
Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877.
14
Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298
15
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718.
16
Vishwa Mittr v. O.P. Poddar, AIR 1984 SC 5; See also In Re: Ganesh Narayan Sathe,(1889) 13 Bom 600; See also In
Re: Keshavalal Jekrishna, (1896) 21 Bom 536.
17
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718.
18
Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 3194.
contrary.19 Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal
statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down,
circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a straitjacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal
jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory exception.20 There is no provision either in the criminal
jurisprudence which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant who is
alleged to have committed an offence.

3.3 Any Person’ is eligible to file Objective Petition

11.Considering the fact that no restriction is attached with the word ‘any person’ in the statute, therefore
no constraint can be applied on its interpretation and application. 21 In other words, the Hon’ble Apex
Court of India clearly held that the apparently wide words ‘any person’ are qualified by the setting in
which they occur and that ‘any person’ is to be understood as a third party. 22

Thus it is most humbly submitted that the Petition under Art.32 of The Constitution Of Alberia filed by
the respondent is maintainable    before the    Hon’ble Supreme Court.

19
Ibid
20
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh, AIR 2012 SC 1185.
21
Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju, AIR 1972 SC 2504
22
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal, AIR 2007 SC 1609.