A Rajarajan v. The Honourable Chairperson

Delhi High Court · 04 Mar 2020 · 2020:DHC:1559-DB

D.N. Patel; C.Hari Shankar

W.P.(C) 2540/2020

2020:DHC:1559-DB

constitutional petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking NHRC intervention for death convicts, holding that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked without exhausting alternative remedies.

Full Text

W.P.(C) 2540/2020
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th March, 2020

W.P.(C) 2540/2020 and CM No. 8869/2020
A RAJARAJAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person

VERSUS

THE HONOURABLE CHAIRPERSON REP. THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL ..... Respondent
Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR O R D E R 04.03.2020
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

JUDGMENT

1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred with the following prayers:

“A. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order, directing the present Respondent i.e. the National Human Rights Commission to intervene and investigate about the physical and mental conditions of the four death convicts with the aid and assistance of unbiased experts from relevant field and submit the report before this Hon'ble Court.

B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order, directing the present Respondent to Investigate or Inquire and submit a Report before this Hon'ble Court with regard to the Human Rights Violations Committed by the concerned authorities against the Four Convicts in Sessions Case No. 114 2020:DHC:1559-DB of 2013 presently Lodged in Central Prison No.3, Tihar.

C. Pass any other order directing the respondent to act proactively and swiftly.

D. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. We have heard the petitioner in person, who has prayed the above prayers. The petitioner submits that he has chosen to invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction, without approaching the National Human Rights Commission at the first instance.

3. We express our dismay in exercising our extraordinary writ jurisdiction especially when the petitioner has not exhausted his other alternative efficacious remedies in law; therefore, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition.

4. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the National Human Rights Commission or any other appropriate fora as deem fit.

5. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. CM APPL. 8869/2020 (stay)

1. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application is disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J MARCH 04, 2020 r.bararia

A Rajarajan v. The Honourable Chairperson

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation