LexCOURT ON ITS OWN MOTION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 13 S.C.R. 1093 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 284 of 2012 DECEMBER 13, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B Arts. 19(1)(d), 21, 25, 32 and 48A - Suo motu action by c Supreme Court - Taking note of press reports regarding poor arrangements and number of deaths occurred during the yatra to the holy cave of Amarnathji - Constitution of a Special High Powered Committee (SHPC) by the Court - The report of SHPC making recommendations on the issues of health, 0 environment, registration, access control and security, track conditions and other public amenities - Held: It is the obligation of the State to provide safety, health care, means to freely move and to profess the religion in the manner within the limitations of law - There were lack of basic amenities and E healthcare to the yatris - Thus the rights of yatris u/Art. 21 were violated - The report of SHPC recommending various steps, development programmes are accepted - In addition specific directions given by the Court. Art. 21 and 48A - Right to life - Dimensions of - Held: F Right to life is a right to live with dignity, safety and in a clean environment - Expression 'life' in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life, but includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure - The expanded F connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned - The concept of inter- generational equity is also an integral part of Art. 21 - The State is obliged to ensure meaningful fulfillment of such right 1093 H 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A - State is required to draw a careful balance between providing security, without violating fundamental human dignity - A greater obligation is on the State to protect and improve the environment in terms of Art. 48A - State should ensure protection of environment on the one hand and also B undertake necessary development with due regard to the fundamental rights and values - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 25(2). Art. 32 - Power under - Scope of - Held: There is clear mandate of Jaw to Supreme Court to protect the fundamental C rights of the citizens - The limitation of acceptability to justice will not come in the way of the Court to extend its powers to ensure due regard and enforcement of the fundamental rights - The absence of law and a vacuum or lacunae in law can a/ways be supplied by judicial dictum - In cases, where there D is no infringement of a specific legislation or even where no legislation is in place, but are purely cases of infringement of fundamental rights and their violation, the directives of the Court are needed to protect them - Constitutional powers E F cannot in any way be controlled by any statutory provision. Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of sustainable development and precautionary principle - Applicability of - Held: The doctrine/principle are applicable to the cases where development is necessary, but not at the cost of environment. Taking note of the press reports as regards poor arrangements and number of deaths that occurred during the yatra to the holy cave of Amarnathji in the year 2012, the Supreme Court took suo motu action and issued notice to the Union of India, State of Jammu and Kashmir G and the Chairman/President of the Amarnathji Shrine Board. After hearing the parties, noticing lack of public amenities, facilities, health care and particularly the high rate of mortality and the need to take immediate and effective steps to remedy the same, the Court constituted H a Special High Powered Committee (SHPC). The SHPC COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA & 1095 ORS. submitted its report making recommendations on the A issues of health, environment, registra,tion, access control and security, track conditions and other public amenities. The recommendations were accepted by all the parties. Disposing of the petition, the Court B HELD: 1.1. Article 19(1 )(d) of the Constitution of India gives a citizen the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. This right, like any other fundamental freedom is neither absolute in terms nor is free from c restrictions. Article 19(5) subjects this right to imposition of reasonable restrictions wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.