RAMSHARAN AUTYANUPRASI & ANR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 870 · Decided: 14-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMSHARAN AUTY ANUPRASI & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 14, 1988 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATIIAN, JJ.] 
c 
D 
B 
'F 
G 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Public Interest Litiga-
tion-Scope of-Whether maintainable with regard to 'Sawai Man 
Singh II Museum Trust' 
Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959: Sections 37 and 38-'Sawai 
Man Singh II Museum Trust'-Maintainability of public interest 
litigation-Consideration of. 
A public trust to manage the Sawai Man Singh II Museum had 
been created by the late Maharaja of Jaipur. After the Maharaja's 
death, his son Sawai Bhawani Singh became the Chairman of the Board 
ot Trusle!!s, which included his step-mother. Disputes and differences 
regarding the conduct and the management of the Trust arose between 
the trustees. In this letter-petition, in the nature of p11blic interest litiga· 
tlon under article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners, after stating 
that the Chairman and his supporters were acting In a manner totally 
detrimental to the interests of the Trust and public interest, have sought 
the intervention of the C.:ourt in the matter and prayed for the appoint· 
ment of a knowledgeable person of ·integrity as the Chairman of the 
Trust. 
Dismissing the petition, it was, 
HELD: (1) This litigation is between the members of the erstwhile 
Raj family to settle their own scores. It is not pro bona publico, for the 
bendit of the public, but the benefit of a particular section of people for 
their personal rights. Hence, the assert)o'! that this dispute is a public 
interest dispute is, wrong. [876A·BJ 
(2) It is true that life In its expanded horizons today includes all 
that gives meaning to a man's life including his tradition, culture and 
heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure would cer-
taillly come within the encompass of an expanded concept of Article 21 
of the Constitution. \'et, when one seeks relief for breach of Article 21, 
. J:I 
one must conf'me . oneself to some direct, overt and tangible act which 
870 
,,
RAMSHARAN v. U.0.1. 
871 
threatens the fullness of his life or the lives of others in the community. A 
In the instant case, the allegations are too vague too indirect and too 
tenuous to threaten the quality of life of people at large or any section of 
the people. [876C-D) 
(3) Public interest litigation is an instrument for the administra-
tion of justice to be used properly in proper cases. Public interest litiga-
B 
tion does not mean settling disputes between individual parties. [876G J 
[Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, [1984) 2 SCR 67, 
referred to. 
( 4) It is imperative to lay down clear guidelines and outline the 
C 
correct parameters for entertaining such petitions. It is only when 
courts are apprised of gross violation of fnndamental rights by a group 
or a class action or when basis human rights are invaded or when there 
are complaints of such acts as 'shock the judicial conscience, that the 
courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles 
and hear such petitions and extend Its jurisdiction under all available D 
provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the 
underdog and the neglected. [877F-G I 
[Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 
[1987) 2 sec 295 at 331, referred to.) 
5. The instant petition, does not seek to advance any public right. 
'It seeks to exploit private grievances. The petition under Article 32 of 
the Constitution is not maintainable. On the facts as appearing from the 
pleadings it cannot be predicted that there is any breach of any funda-
mental rights of the petitioners. In view of the nature of the allegations 
E 
it is a case which is more amenable to be proceeded under sections 37 & 
F 
38 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which correspond to Sec-
tions 91 & 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [875G-H) 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 442 of 
1988. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh and A.K. Gupta for the petitioners. 
Rajinder Sachhar, S.C. Paul, M.M. Kashyap, E.C. Agarwala, 
G 
S.K. Jain and J.M. Khanna for the Respondents. 
H 
_,,
A 
B 
c 
D 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a petition under Alrticle. 32 
of the Constitution, filed by Ramsharun Autyanprasi ahd %jendra 
Singh. They assert that it is public intetest -litigation. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.