Certain essential rights are outlined in section III of the Indian Constitution by its founders, including in Articles 12 through 35. Protected by the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government, fundamental rights are the fundamental freedoms that underpin democracy in the nation. article 32 of the constitution provides a constitutional remedy that allows anyone to directly approach the Supreme Court of India in the event that their fundamental rights are violated. article 226 of the constitution provides the right to appear before High courts on the constitutional remedies. They can file a writ petition in accordance with Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution.
naresh shridhar mirajkar vs state of Maharashtra Case Facts
- Three fictitious handloom factories were also formed on the paper. A China Cotton Exporters was an organization whose partner, Mr. Thackersey, had obtained a license for the import of art silk yarn on the condition that the same be sold to handloom weavers only. This was done only to protect that they might sell the silk yarn underneath the black market with a view to grasp higher profits.
- Bhaichand G. Goda was a defence witness in the libel claim and was presumed to be the guarantor with regard to the transactions listed in the cases. All of the parties to the original libel complaint under article “Scandal Bigger than Mundhra” were included in the publication “Blitz,” which was edited by Mr. R. K. Karanjia, and contained the allegations made by Mr. Goda against Mr. Thackersay in an affidavit.
- Bhaichand Goda, who was called by Mr. Karanjia as a defense witness, fabricated the testimony in the witness box, claiming to be completely unaware of the transactions in question. With the protection of the learned judge overseeing the case, Mr. Goda refuted all of the claims he had made concerning Mr. Thackersey’s concerns.
- Additionally, he claimed that his business had suffered as a result of his previous evidence being published in the press. As a result, he asked that the evidence he had been summoned back to provide not be included in the publications. The Judge heard arguments when Mr. Goda submitted this motion to the court, and he orally declared that Mr. Goda’s testimony shouldn’t be made public.
- The Judge then instructed Mr. Karanjia’s attorney to instruct “Blitz” to refrain from disseminating information about Mr. Goda’s testimony. In addition, Mr. Karanjia argued against the order’s validity and suggested that the judge issue a written order prohibiting the publication of Mr. Goda’s testimony. He also praised the judge for recognizing the fundamental rule of the justice system, which is that the public must be accommodated.
- However, the Judge rejected Mr. Karanjia’s concerns, saying that no formal order was required because he had previously issued an oral order for the suppression of such publication. Furthermore, he expressed his expectation that his spoken directive would be followed. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition with the Bombay Supreme Court pursuant to article 226 of the constitution because he felt wronged by the aforementioned oral order that had expired the supreme court justice.
- Nevertheless, a Division Bench of the aforementioned judiciary dismissed this petition, stating that the contested order was a court order that isn’t subject to a writ granted under article 226 of the constitution.
- Later, the petitioner filed a motion under article 32 of the constitution with the Supreme Court to enforce his fundamental rights under the Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) and (g).
naresh shridhar mirajkar vs state of Maharashtra Issues
- Whether or not the High Court was entitled to make the contested order?
- Does the contested order infringe upon the petitioners’ essential fundamental rights as stated in Article 19(1)(a), (d), and (g) of the Indian constitution?
- Is the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32(2) amenable or not?
naresh shridhar mirajkar vs state of Maharashtra Judgment
- The High Court was found to be competent to issue the contested orders, and even in the event that it went beyond its authority, article 19 (1) (a) of the indian constitution is not violated by the ruling.
- It was decided that the High Court possesses the authority to determine whether it is competent to prevent the release of any material or document that pertains to the trial of an ongoing lawsuit or the subject matter of the lawsuit.
- A public forum is a court of law. Public relations help citizens believe that the Court of Justice is unbiased, so it’s imperative that the trial be open to the public and that the court report’s release be unrestricted.
- The public’s trust in the way justice is administered grows. The court may only order a closed-door hearing or forbid the publishing of the procedural report while the matter is still ongoing in extremely unusual circumstances.
In this case, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that, absent an ultra vires verdict, no court under article 32 of the constitution has the competence or authority to grant a certiorari petition against the High Court or the same bench court. The right to appeal the decision to the appellate court is always available to the side that feels wronged. Because of this, the High Court cannot be sued via a writ of certiorari unless specific conditions are met.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
