Supreme Court Astounded By Plea To Declare Fundamental Rights As Unconstitutional, Notes The Irony In Petitioner Invoking Article 32

A Division Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph of the Supreme Court of India on Friday rejected a petition seeking a declaration that the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution were "ultra vires the Constitution and void ab initio". The case of the petitioner appearing in person was that the impugned Part was "contradictory to the true spirit of the Preamble of the Constitution" and "against the law of nature". The Bench, also comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, noted the irony in invoking Article 32 which is also a Fundamental Right, to pray for the deletion of Fundamental Rights. Right at the outset, Justice Joseph expressed his shock at the request – "Are you sure you want to press this petition? Your prayer is astounding. We are shocked that you have made this prayer…By applying Article 32, you have asked us to issue an appropriate order declaring Part III of the Constitution ultra vires and void ab initio." Justice Joseph also lamented the misuse of public interest litigations, which he noted, were developed by the apex court with "a sublime object". He said – "Public interest litigation has reached such a state that a citizen of this country is bringing this kind of a prayer." Then, Justice Joseph asked the petitioner-in-person – "What are you doing in life? What is your vocation?" The petitioner responded – "I am a financial and taxation consultant. I am doing some social work, spreading this sense of responsibility among all sections of society." Next, Justice Joseph enquired – "There should be a limit…You are a tax consultant? What is your educational qualification?" The petitioner said that he was a law graduate. After hearing this, Justice Joseph exclaimed – "You have done your LL.B. also? My God!" Despite expressing its reservations, the Bench allowed the petitioner an opportunity to make his submissions. However, it was clarified that if the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition, a nominal cost would be imposed. Justice Joseph asked – "What do you want to do? If you want to argue, we will permit that. But if you withdraw, even that withdrawal will come at a small cost." When the petitioner expressed his intention to withdraw the petition, Justice Joseph pronounced the following order – "…Ironically, this petition itself is filed under Article 32 which is a fundamental right under Chapter III which he seeks to be declared as ultra vires and void ab initio. However, the petitioner-in-person seeks to withdraw this petition. Public interest litigation was evolved by this Court with a sublime object. This is a case where the petitioner appears to be completely misguided in filing this petition. However, we are inclined to permit the petitioner to withdraw it but not unconditionally. Accordingly, the petition will stand dismissed as withdrawn. This is subject to the payment of costs of Rs 5000 to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee within a period of one months." Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court had expressed concern at the "mushroom growth" of frivolous public interest litigations. A vacation Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli had criticised such a practice since it encroached on "valuable judicial time". Such litigations should be be nipped in the bud, the Bench had observed. Case Title Human Duties Foundation v. Union of India & Anr. [WP (C) No. 866/2021]

Supreme Court Astounded By Plea To Declare Fundamental Rights As Unconstitutional, Notes The Irony In Petitioner Invoking Article 32

Awstika Das

Tags