Manushi Sangathan v Government of Delhi-Its Implications
The following project aims to discuss the highlights of the judgement of Manushi Sangathan v Government of Delhi, and the various legal provisions it attracts. The case involves an expansion of the rights of the poor, overturning a number of previous decisions.
In the case, Manushi Sangathan (an organization that represents the causes of the poorer sections of the society) challenged the implementation of some aspects of Delhi’s transport policy, which were approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The policy fixed the total number of cycle rickshaws that could ply on the streets of Delhi at 99,000, required that the plier of the rickshaw be its owner, and certain other provisions. The High Court ruled in favour Manushi Sangathan, holding most of the provisions of the transport policy to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the same.
The judgement in the case is a rare one, where the Court has expanded the rights and freedoms of the poor. It was inconsistent with the precedents, i.e. Hemraj and Ors v C.P. Delhi (2006) and All Delhi Cycle Rickshaw Operators Union v MCD. While the latter emphasized on the ‘owner-plier’ policy, in the former, the representatives were not heard on the premise that pulling rickshaws was degrading labour.
The following issues were examined by the court-
Fixing of total number of rickshaws at 99,000:
This was held to be
Disputes arose as Saw Pipes was not able to conform to the delivery time and the strike went on for 2 months. ONGC deducted a large sum from the bills on account of delay as Liquidated damages caused. The matter was referred to arbitration and an award was passed in the favour of Saw Pipes. ONGC challenged this award the Supreme Court concluded that ONGC was justified in deducting the amount and the arbitrators were wrong in awarding the amount with interest and set aside the award. The Court held that any arbitral award which violates Indian statutory provisions is “patently illegal” and contrary to “public policy”.
In INS v. Chadha, the issue at hand was a House action that was not sent to the Senate or the President for approval but was made and approved solely in the House. The House had decided to pass a resolution, a legislative veto, that would have overturned the Attorney General’s decision to allow Chadha to stay in the country. The Supreme Court decided legislative vetoes were unconstitutional. In Justice Burger’s opinion, he focused on a few key points these being the Presentment Clause, bicameralism, the ability for the president to veto the legislation as well as Congress’s power to override his veto. All of these were used as checks on the power of each branch and to maintain our separation of powers. Being that the House resolution was not sent to the Congress it already went against the bicameral requirement; since it was not presented to the Senate and not passed, then it violated all the others as well since the president didn’t even have the chance to view the legislation. Even if one of these was not followed as it had been laid out in the Constitution it would be ruled unconstitutional. He even says that with Congress’s decision to delegate power to the Attorney General through the congressional system, they must resolve this issue the same way they created it through the bicameral system that is in place. The Constitution makes clear in which ways a single house of Congress can act alone and this was not one of the ways. Justice White, on the other hand, disagrees and believes that the “veto has been a means of defense, a reservation of ultimate authority necessary if Congress is to fulfill its designated role under Article I as the nation’s lawmaker.” He argues that since the legislative veto is in so many statues and in all areas of government that the court is not allowing Congress to do their jobs efficiently. He believes the main issue stems from the Constitution's silence on legislative vetoes; later in his dissent he equates legislative vetoes to presidential vetoes, but only one of those vetoes is found in the Constitution and it isn’t legislative vetoes, I find this reasoning troubling. Ultimately the dissent’s argument reminds me of Frankfurts “gloss” in Youngstown due to his argument that
Legislative veto is one of a number of means by which the US congress attempted to control administrative agencies to which the congress has delegated substantial discretionary authority . It is the power of the legislative arm over delegated authorities. For instance, in INS v. Chadha , a Section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes either House of the Congress to invalidate and suspend deportation rulings of the United States Attorney General .
The government also promises to the poor, better schools and hospitals. Balram’s father died because there was improper medical care in their home town, and the life expectancy in India is only 66.8 years. There are nearly 1,189,172,906 people in India and only 61% of the people living in India are literate. In New Delhi, though, the government does fulfill its promises to the rich. They live unaware and uncaring of the slums surrounding their middle class lives. The government makes promises of better livelihoods to its people that are never fulfilled; causing India’s poor to remain in the slums and the government to have little understanding of the problems poor people face.
(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1)  AC 85 and (No.2)  1 AC 603
In the words of Elmer Driedger (as cited in Boyd, 2015), “the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context in their grammatical sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament” (p. 65). This approach advocates analysis which balances the literal language used with the context of the statute and its intended purpose. This paper will assess the strength Driedger's approach in relation to the cases R. v. Boudreault, Paldi Khalsa Diwan Society v. Cowichan Valley (Regional District), and R. v. Skakun. It will be argued that Driedger's approach is advantageous to the courts in general, but insofar as it is combined with the principle of stare decisis, it is beneficial only when the judgments in precedent-setting cases accord with fundamental justice.
In order to ensure that Fundamental Rights did not remain empty provisions, the founding fathers of our Constitution have made various provisions in the Constitution to maintain an independent judiciary. Articles related to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and independent judiciary together provide a firm constitutional basis to the growth of Public Interest Litigation in India. The founding fathers envisaged ‘‘the judiciary as a bastion of rights and justice’’. An independent judiciary lanced with the power of judicial review was the constitutional device chosen to achieve the required objective. This jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights was conferred upon both the Supreme Court and the High Courts, hence them being the courts that have entertained all the Public Interest Litigation cases.
Jury trials in India had come to an end unceremoniously; the immediate cause for abolition of jury trials was “Not Guilty” verdict of jury in K.M.Nanavati Vs. state of Maharashtra . The sessions Judge disagreed the Jury opinion, in his view, no reasonable body of men could bring that verdict on the evidence and referred the matter
Indian middle class is growing, so does the sale of automobiles, each middle class family owns at least one car, besides that the upper middle class is emerging as well, this is the class who owns two or more than two cars. this matter was always debatable, has now become more controversial. The substantial issue reported has sparkled that controversy over the potential impact of the issue reported. From my perspective, this would be a good idea to restrict one car per family to reduce the traffic on the road. The essay will elaborate further reasons to support the notion and thus deduce a logical conclusion.
The implementation of the odd-even policy has directly or indirectly impacted a wide variety of people especially those living in Delhi. Due to the complexity of the demographic structure and transportation system in Delhi, this experiment has drew intense attentions from the public and brought pressure to the government. The citizens in Delhi were highly impacted by this drastic measure. Meanwhile, the high court in Delhi and the Delhi government played the key roles in determining and implementing the policy. It is crucial to understand the role of each stakeholder played in this issue and how well their interests or concerns were addressed. More importantly, studies were made to investigate which stakeholder has a higher level of influence in the policy making and implementation process. This will provide important insights to the future implementation of the policy as revealed by the government earlier. Therefore, this paper has carefully examined the interests of three main stakeholders groups (residents in Delhi including the minorities, Delhi government and the High Court), the impacts of policy on each group and their level of influence in this policy.