Right to life

Petitioner was aggrieved of disposal of untreated sewerage effluent into fresh water canal which water was the only source of drinking and irrigation

Validity

Canal in question was a vital water source used for both irrigation and drinking purposes by humans and animals and also for agriculture

Ground water of locality was highly brine and unfit for consumption, leaving the canal as primary source of potable water

Discharging untreated sewerage waste into the canal was leading to contamination of water and posing severe health risks to residents of the area

High Court directed Director-General of Punjab Environmental Protection Agency to visit the spot forthwith and conduct the environmental assessment of water contamination on urgent basis and take prompt actions to save human life of the area, posing an imminent public health crisis, exacerbating deplorable condition of already vulnerable population in the region

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Right to life is not confined to mere existence but extends to living a life of dignity, free from humiliation, inhuman treatment, or arbitrary intrusion.

Provision of S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 [as inserted by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015] is a specific provision dealing with suit for maintenance as a special category of family claims

Provision of S.17-A is introduced through Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015 on 18-03-2015, which has placed maintenance of wife and children at a higher pedestal than other family claims

Maintenance allowance serves as a means of subsistence and survival for wife and children, intrinsically connected to their right to life guaranteed under Arts. 4 & 9 of the Constitution

Discretionary powers on Family Court have also been conferred under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 [as inserted by Punjab Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015] to prescribe annual increase in maintenance to cater for future needs and requirements of wife and children as well as depreciation in value of currency in terms of inflation

No caveat is attached to the power of Family Court to prescribe such annual increase in maintenance on compound or non-compound basis

Family Court is free to pass a reasonable decree in such behalf depending on facts and circumstances of each case.

Fair, transparent and merit-based consideration for promotion forms an essential facet of the right to livelihood, and thus, of right to life itself

Where civil servant meets prescribed qualifications and conditions for promotion, lawful and transparent consideration of their case creates a legitimate expectation that such progression has to materialize unless cogent reasons to the contrary exist

Denial or indefinite deferral of such consideration, particularly when based on arbitrary, opaque, or shifting grounds violates such expectation and reduces Constitutional guarantees to mere rhetoric.

Life worth living is one having a sustainable environment.

Fair, transparent and merit-based consideration for promotion forms an essential facet of the right to livelihood, and thus, of right to life itself

Where civil servant meets prescribed qualifications and conditions for promotion, lawful and transparent consideration of their case creates a legitimate expectation that such progression has to materialize unless cogent reasons to the contrary exist

Denial or indefinite deferral of such consideration, particularly when based on arbitrary, opaque, or shifting grounds violates such expectation and reduces Constitutional guarantees to mere rhetoric.

Any prohibition on pursuit of intellectual liberty and on the concept of objective truth, threatens in the long run every department of thought

Reading not only enables free thought but in turn empowers free speech which is the cornerstone of liberty as enshrined in the Constitution

This is how a connection is established between reading and life and liberty (Article 9) so that right to read must be deemed comprised in the right to life and liberty as a penumbra of that right.

Here, the trust property consists of natural resources and government is their trustee and must manage them subject to fiduciary duties for the benefit of both present and future generations who are beneficiaries of public trust

As in private trust context, trustee of public trust must adhere to both substantive and procedural duties

Former includes: (i) the duty of protection; (ii) the duty against waste; (iii) the duty to maximize value of trust resources; (iv) the duty to restore trust resources when damaged; and (v) the duty against privatizing trust resources

On the other hand, procedural duties are: (i) the duty of loyalty; (ii) the duty to supervise agents; (iii) the duty of good faith and reasonable care; (iv) the duty of precaution; and (v) the duty to furnish information to beneficiaries.

Fundamental right to life, and to live it with dignity (Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution respectively) is to live in a world which has an abundance of all species.

Provision of Art.9 of the Constitution includes life which is free from hazards caused by environmental pollution in order to nurture healthy and robust life for the people of Pakistan

Principles of policy under Art. 38 of the Constitution oblige the State to secure well-being of people to provide basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race

Such goal can only be achieved by the State by ensuring minimum standards comprised in the term 'life' and to prevent climate crisis so that human activity can be carried on without harmful effects of severe weather events which are caused by climate change

Concept of penumbras has been employed to enlarge meaning of life and if climate crisis triggers life-changing events, then the right conferred by Art.9 is in serious jeopardy.

Service benefit(s) is not merely an award but is given with an objective to help an old aged person to stand well with his obligations in rest of his days because on having attained age of superannuation it is believed that such person is not fit to undertake hard jobs

It is always the duty and obligation of the department to ensure prompt payment of all service benefit(s) to such a person as the dignity of a pensioner mostly depend upon such benefits or use thereof

Word 'life' is of wider meaning

Right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which make life worth-living.

Right to life inter alia includes the right to enjoy public spaces such as parks.

Article 9 of the Constitution had strenuously vouched for the protections of right to life of every person and it was the duty of the Constitutional Courts to protect and safeguard all the fundamental rights provided and guaranteed under the Constitution.

Sale deed relied upon by petitioner was executed during currency of interim orders passed in civil suit pending before High Court

False affidavit was given in the suit to procure registration of sale deed in question

Statements of officials in civil suit in question confirmed that defendants in that suit were encroachers who had conveyed title to petitioner

Revenue record declared title of land in question as fake by Board of Revenue and revenue officials were held responsible for falsifying the records who were dismissed from service

Sale deed in question was registered with Sub-Registrar having no jurisdiction over the subject property as the same fell within the jurisdiction of other Sub-Registrar

High Court declined to interfere in the matter but directed the authorities that till decision of title of subject plots/houses, temporary connections of electricity would be provided to them as the matter was already sub judice in civil suit

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Use of amenity/public property by the public for enjoyment or other facilities of life was covered by the word "Life" employed in Art.9 of the Constitution

To enter into and use of the said property without any obstacle was a fundamental right as enshrined in Art. 26 read with Art. 9 of the Constitution.

If any person was deprived of fundamental right, he could always approach High Court by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction with a rider that such right was not hampered with any law

Right to irrigate agriculture land was also governed and protected under irrigation laws and rules made thereunder

In case of infringement of such laws and rules the same could be examined by High Court

Petitioner had been supplied irrigation water to his land as per record since long, which fact was admitted by authorities

Watercourse in question was flowing from the land of respondents as per record of irrigation department, who had prima facie attempted to stop the same, compelling petitioner to approach High Court for redressal of his grievance

High Court directed the authorities to ensure supply of irrigation water to land of petitioner, as per share list and in accordance with irrigation laws, rules and regulations without any unwanted disturbance from any corner

If respondents had any objection to supply of irrigation water to land of petitioner from watercourse in question, they were to approach concerned authority under irrigation laws for cancellation of sanctioned watercourse of petitioner and authorities were to decide the matter in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Constitutional obligation of the State to create necessary conditions and environment for its citizens to enjoy rights without causing environmental degradation

Duty is not restricted to preventing violation of right to life but to take effective measures to deter any threat to right to life

Exercising due diligence is a duty and it ought to be demonstrably reflected through actions and conduct of public functionaries.

As living organisms, flora and fauna have rights bestowed upon them by nature and it is their natural right not to be deprived of habitats created for them by nature

State is to protect rights of fauna and flora by protecting and preserving their habitats

It is an obligation of State to ensure that habitats created by nature are not disturbed nor interfered with unless there are compelling reasons to do so and that too after the State has exercised due diligence in order to ensure that such an interference does not contribute to environmental degradation.

State has an inherent duty to have a proactive role in protecting living species because right to life guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution is dependent on it

Beneficiaries are a few while victims of environmental degradation and destruction of natural habitats and ecosystems are the people, rather the human species

Violators are not ordinary citizens but institutions and public functionaries who exist solely to serve actual stakeholders i.e. the people and to safeguard their rights

Biodiversity, ecosystems and natural habitats are possessed of life and are thus living organisms

Life, whether that of human or other living beings, depends on the existence of biodiversity, ecosystems and natural habitats

Protection of ecosystems and natural habitats is inextricably linked to right to life guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution

Protection of ecosystems and natural habitats is a constitutional obligation of the State, its institutions and every public functionary.

Availability of clean water and keeping environment free from pollution has a direct nexus with fundamental right guaranteed to every person under Art. 9 of the Constitution

Life is inextricably dependent on safeguarding atmospheric greenhouse

Environmental degradation and adverse impacts of climatic change inevitably causes loss of lives, disease and increase in poverty

World Bank study carried out in year 2015 has estimated that environmental degradation is costing Pakistan almost 9% of its GDP.

Notifications U.O. No.8/5/2017-TK, dated 18-12-2018 &U.O. No.8/2/2020-TK, dated 26-10-2020 issued by Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan

Constitutional petition

Tosha Khana articles

Auction procedure

Right to life

Petitioner assailed Notifications U.O. No.8/5/2017-TK, dated 18-12-2018 and U.O. No.8/2/2020-TK, dated 26-10-2020 issued by Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan which changed criteria for auction of different articles available in Tosha Khana

Validity

Inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and no action detrimental to his life, liberty, reputation or property can be taken except as per law

Auction notice/advertisement in question infringed fundamental rights of petitioner

Courts are custodian of fundamental rights of citizens and protectors of civil liberties

Constitution makes it imperative upon the Court to pass orders and issue directions in case of breach

Basic human rights of life, liberty and enjoyment of one's property has been recognized nationally as well as internationally

Word 'life' in the Constitution has not been used in a limited manner

Right to life under Art. 9 of the Constitution includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy legally and Constitutionally with dignity

High Court declared notifications U.O. No.8/5/2017-TK, dated 18-12-2018 and U.O. No.8/2/2020-TK, dated 26-10-2020 both issued by Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, ultra vires of the Constitution and were set aside as the same were against Arts. 4, 9, 14 & 25 of the Constitution

High Court directed Federal Government to formulate new policy or lay down an enactment to regulate auction proceedings for the articles of Tosha Khana

High Court further directed Federal Government to ensure that new policy or enactment would be within the parameters of law and Constitution

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Such was inhumane to have deprived brown bears of living in their natural habitat merely for entertainment of human species

Two bears had been caged in zoo for more than a decade

No matter how well equipped a zoo was but it was no less than a concentration camp for living beings

Both the bears were sent by the Creator to live free in their natural habitats, who were born free and taking them out of their natural habitat and caging them was in violation of natural rights bestowed upon them by the Creator

Bears were imprisoned without having committed a crime

By depriving the two bears of their natural habitat, the human species interfered with the balance created by the Creator

Bears were subjected to unimaginable pain and suffering and there was no justification for such cruel treatment other than to entertain the human species

Both the bears had suffered enough and they lacked ability to let the human species know what they must have gone through

Abnormal behaviour of bears while imprisoned was sufficient to speak volumes for the unimaginable pain and suffering

Application was allowed accordingly.

Subjecting a sentient living being an animal to unnecessary pain and suffering is not only an offence under the law but a breach of constitutionally guaranteed right to life of humans under Art. 9 of the Constitution

In the present digital era, there are other more effective alternatives to meaningfully educate children and adults regarding wild animals and how they behave in nature, instead of keeping them in captivity under distressfully inhumane conditions

Replacing steel bars and cemented cages with moats or ditches are of no help to avoid causing unimaginable stress and pain of 'zoochosis' to inmates of a zoo

Best of the circumstances in the most well managed and resourced zoo cannot be a substitute or a natural habitat, nor can the behavioral, social and physiological needs of any species of animal be met

Pursuant to the duty of care humans owe to protect nature, there could be compelling reasons necessitating keeping a wild animal in captivity e.g. for the purpose of conservation of endangered species or to protect abandoned animals from being harmed

Wild animals were to be treated as an end in themselves and not a means for mere entertainment of humans

High Court directed the Wildlife Management Board to submit weekly report to High Court regarding completion of formalities for the journey of 'Kaaval' to his new home and relocation of all other animals and authorities were directed to give serious consideration to the observations of renowned operatic tenor, Robert Breault, "the only creature on earth whose natural habitat is a zoo is the zookeeper"

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Threat of climate change and its ensuring devastating consequences for human race can only be avoided if environmental degradation and damage to ecosystems and biodiversity can be stopped

Protection and preservation of wildlife species is a precondition for meeting challenges that stem from damage to ecosystems and degradation of environment

Welfare, well-being and survival of animal species is foundational principle for survival of human race on this planet

Without wildlife species there will be no human on this planet

Neglect of welfare and well-being of animal species, or any treatment of an animal that subjects it to unnecessary pain or suffering, has implications for right of life of humans guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution

Relationship of treatment of animals and right to life of humans make it an obligation of the State and its authorities to jealously guard against cruel and illegal treatment of animals

Protecting, preserving and conserving animals species and preventing them from harm is a Constitutional obligation of the State and its authorities.

Enforcing existing enforced laws and regulatory framework in Islamabad Capital Territory has become inevitable because right to life guaranteed under Art.9 of the Constitution is being flagrantly violated.

Right to life was not restricted only to the prosecution of a person but the State was required to ensure that all aspects of citizens' life were protected and dealt with by the State

Right to life included the provision of drinking water; provision of electricity; provision of education; provision of health facility; provision of civic and civil infrastructure, and provision of transportation for citizens etc.

Right to life undoubtedly entailed the right to healthcare which meant that everyone had the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and this comprised of access to all kinds of medical services including but not limited to hospitals, clinics, medicines and services of medical practitioners which must not only be readily available and easily accessible to everyone without discrimination, but also of high standard

Federal Government had an obligation to carry out all necessary steps to ensure realization of this goal.

Contention of petitioners was that similar placed employees had already been regularized by the Bank but they had been deprived of their legal rights

Validity

Petitioners were performing their duties on different positions in the Bank since their appointments without any break or discontinuation

Bank was being benefited from the labour, blood and sweat of the employees

Petitioners had contributed towards the prosperity and progress of the Bank

Employees had not been considered for regularization by the Bank

Right to life did include the right to livelihood and same could not hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority

Service of an employee could be brought to an end but in accordance with law

Nothing was on record as to why petitioners had not been regularized

Status of present employees was identical to those employees whose cases had been allowed by the Supreme Court

Where matter had been settled once for all then Bank/employers were supposed to treat its similarly placed employees on the same footing without compelling them to approach the Court of law

Bank could not be allowed to discriminate the petitioners in violation of judgment of Supreme Court

Bank was directed to regularize the employees against their respective posts with effect from the date they had approached through constitutional petition

Petitioners would be entitled for pensionary benefits if any from the date of their initial appointments

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Right to life guaranteed under Arts.9 & 14 of the Constitution included right to live in a world that had an abundance of all species, not only duration of current generation but also for its progeny.

Inspection reports submitted by District and Sessions Judges in respect of Government hospitals in their respective district

Hospital buildings and equipment in state of despair

Shortage of doctors and para-medical staff

Dysfunctional operation theatres

Lack of adequate security, hygiene and sanitation

Citizen's right to adequate health care was a part of the right to life which was a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, which the Provincial Government was obliged to ensure

High Court directed that Provincial Secretary Health shall ensure that all the aspects pointed out in the reports of the District and Sessions Judges in respect of the public hospitals in their respective district were rectified/acted upon including repair, maintenance, provision of equipment and staff etc. prior to the next date of hearing; that the Provincial Secretary Health shall file a report which shall clearly state what works/repairs/maintenance the respective District and Sessions Judges in their reports required to be carried out, what equipment was needed, how many staff was required and at what level etc. in respect of each public hospital and confirmation that all such work had been undertaken, and all such equipment and staff had been provided; that the Provincial Secretary Finance was to ensure that sufficient budget was made available for such purposes

Constitutional petition was re-listed for next date of hearing.

Such right particularly in cold areas during winters, especially when gas fields were located within 5 km of a village, was a fundamental right of such villagers, which formed part of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution and which was also in consonance with an Islamic welfare state.

Economic prosperity was a sine qua non for the implementation of all fundamental rights, the paramount right being that of life.

Article 9 of the Constitution did not merely protect the right to 'exist' or 'live' but embodied the right to live a meaningful life with a minimum standard of living

Right to life included a right to basic amenities and living standard, right to livelihood, right to a safe and health-friendly environment, right to provision of electricity and gas, and access to clean drinking water etc.

Article 9 of the Constitution guaranteed the right to life which included the right to a clean and healthy environment.

Condition that candidate having any third division in his/her entire career would not be eligible to apply against the said posts

Effect

Reasonable restriction

Right to life

Scope

Petitioners applied for the posts in question but they were not called for test due to their third divisions in B.A.

Validity

Every citizen had right to enter upon any lawful occupation or profession subject to qualification as might be prescribed

Impugned condition which had restricted the petitioners having third division in their entire career was not prescribed by any Act of the Parliament nor same was backed by any provision of law

Said condition had been prescribed through an administrative decision by way of policy which was not permissible under Article 18 of the Constitution

Nature of rights infringed through any restriction should be proportionate to the urgency of the evil sought to be remedied by the said restriction

Constitution that any candidate who had secured third division once in his/her life time could never improve his/her educational career in future was unreasonable, harsh and irrational condition

Petitioners in the present case, who got third division in B. A. had got first in their M. A Physical Education which was prescribed qualification for the posts in question

Once a candidate having third division had been considered to have passed a particular academic class and was entitled to promote in the next class then imposing a condition that such candidate would not be eligible to apply for the post was irrational, unreasonable and harsh

Courts should not interfere in the policy matters but if policy was in conflict with any provision of law or was violative of the Fundamental Rights then same could be called in question in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Every citizen had a right of quality education

State was under an obligation to establish best educational institutions to enable its citizens to ensure the said right

State was neither providing best educational institutions nor it was in a position to meet the demand of quality education in entire country

No justification existed in circumstances to impose the impugned condition

Impugned condition had been imposed only in the Education Department and no other government department had imposed such condition

Impugned condition was violative of right of livelihood

Petitioners were not in a position to improve their past academic qualification due to overage or other circumstances beyond their control

Alleged condition was declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution and was struck down by High Court

Petitioners would be entitled to apply for the posts so advertised, however, their recruitment should be subject to fulfillment of other prescribed conditions

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Right to life would fail if anyone was denied or deprived of any such thing which otherwise did make his life complete i.e. meaningful.

Disabled person had discretion to apply for his recruitment as an 'ordinary citizen' on open merits if disability otherwise did not disqualify him or to apply under special provisions

Right to life would fail if anyone was denied or deprived of any such thing which otherwise did make his life complete i.e. meaningful

Employment did help one in claiming his life meaningful and complete

Such right should be considered as an essential part of the life

Petitioner qualified the test and was placed in merit list at Serial No. 3

Twenty two posts were available and petitioner was entitled for recruitment on open merit, in circumstances

Authorities might frame any policy however, same must pass the test of its being 'reasonable'

Differently Able persons had been provided some privileges/advantages but policy of letting 'normal' persons to compete on Taluka/Union Council basis while Differently Able persons on District/Division level could not be accepted as 'reasonable'

Candidate securing highest marks was to be on the top of the merit list but when policy was that the vacancy would be filled on need basis then such need was to be specified before and at the time of issuance of public notice/advertisement

Filling up of such vacancy on need basis could not be done at the time of tabulation

Vested right had accrued in favour of petitioner which could not be deviated from by the department

Petitioner after passing test was successful candidate in disabled quota

Department was directed to appoint the petitioner as Junior School Teacher as and when a vacancy fell vacant

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Availability of clean water and keeping environment free from pollution has a direct nexus with fundamental right guaranteed to every person under Art.9 of the Constitution.

Water was a resource to which everyone was entitled, and it was indispensable to those who wished to lead a dignified life

Access to water formed the basis of many other rights including the right to life, health and quality of life.

In terms of the provisions of Art. 184(3) of the Constitution read with Art. 9 and as guardians of the Fundamental Rights of the people of Pakistan, Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to issue necessary directions to the Government for the practical enforcement of the primordial right to life.

Need for water reservoirs was not only expedient but also sine qua non for the survival of the people and economy of the country

Right to life was a Fundamental Right and without water there could be no existence of life

Establishment of water reservoirs was therefore not a question of just quality of life rather the very existence thereof

In terms of the provisions of Art. 184(3) of the Constitution read with Art. 9 and as guardian of the Fundamental Rights of the people of the country, the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to issue necessary directions to the Government for the practical enforcement of the primordial right to life

Supreme Court directed the Federal and Provincial Governments, the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and all the executive authorities in the country who were responsible or had nexus/connection with the building of the Diamer Bhasha Dam and Mohmand Dam and all matters connected thereto, to take all necessary steps for the commencement of construction and early completion of said dams; that a comprehensive report in such regard with detailed timelines and milestones shall be submitted to the Supreme Court within a period of three weeks by an Implementation Committee headed by the Chairman WAPDA and for the time being comprising experts and officials of the Federal and Provincial Governments including certain other officials; that an account shall be established for the time being in the name of the Registrar of the Supreme Court for collecting funds donated by the people of the country for the construction and establishment of the dams; that the funds in the said account shall be utilized solely for the construction and establishment of the dams and shall for the time being be operated under the orders of the Supreme Court on the recommendations of the Implementation Committee; that the funds in the account shall not under any circumstance or for any reason be diverted or utilized for any purpose other than the construction of the dams; that no questions shall be asked by any authority or department including, but not limited to the tax authorities, relating to the source of funds contributed to the account, and that the utilization of the said funds shall be subject to audit as per directions of the Supreme Court.

Said right included all those aspects of life which made a person's life meaningful, complete and worth living, such as his tradition, culture and heritage.

Petitioner being successful candidate was recommended for appointment but due to ban on recruitment appointment letter was not issued

Effect

Departmental Selection Committee had recommended the petitioner as successful candidate for the post in question on 19-09-2007

Ban on fresh appointment was imposed with effect from 01-01-2008

Such ban had no legal effect and impact on the already completed process for recruitment of vacant post/s

Ban imposed by the government could not be given retrospective effect

Fundamental Right to life would include the right to livelihood and it could not hang on the fancies of the persons in authority

Valuable right having been accrued in favour of petitioner, he was entitled to the issuance of appointment letter

Impugned order was declared without lawful authority having no legal effect

Authorities were directed to issue appointment letter in favour of petitioner within thirty days on the basis of recommendations prepared by Departmental Selection Committee

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Right to life included right to education.

Appointment of petitioner as constable in Police Department was refused on the ground that he was previously convicted under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965

Validity

Appointment to superior positions had been barred for the persons who were convicted in cases which fell into one of moral turpitude, of scandalizing the Judiciary and Armed Forces, undermining the ideology and security of Pakistan and other offences of the like nature

Case of petitioner did not fall in any of such categories

Petitioner was not involved in any case of moral turpitude and he had been recommended for appointment on merit

Petitioner had been convicted for possessing 12 bore live cartridges ten in number and he was sentenced to pay Rs.100/- as fine

Appointing authority had taken harsh view in the case of petitioner

Lifelong ban against government appointment would offend fundamental right to life of petitioner

Petitioner had confessed his guilt in criminal case just to avoid court proceedings

Petitioner should not be kept debarred for ever to enter upon government service

Authority had not acted in accordance with law while refusing appointment of petitioner as constable on such reason alone

Department was directed to appoint the petitioner forthwith against the post he applied for

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Civic amenities constituted a basic right of the citizens and said right had to be upheld on the touchstone of Art.9 of the Constitution.

Appellant's constitutional petition impugning conversion of an open space designated as a park to another use, by the authorities was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the Constitutional petition involved disputed questions of fact

Validity

Civic amenities constituted a basic right of citizens and said right had to be upheld on the touchstone of Art.9 of the Constitution

Authorities had no power or authority under law to convert use of the open space and raise construction thereon, as the same had been in continuous use as a park, and had been maintained as such

High Court observed that it had been established that the status of the area which was the subject matter of the constitutional petition was for use as a park and said position was reinforced by various orders of the High Court in previous rounds of litigation, as well as by the stance of authorities in the said cases

Nature and existence of the park was therefore an undisputed fact, and thus it was disingenuous for the authorities to now take a contrary position

Finding recorded in the impugned order regarding disputed questions of fact, was therefore not valid, as the nature and existence of the park had been established by judicial orders and statements of the authorities

Impugned order was set aside, and authorities were directed to preserve and maintain the open space as a park, which was not to be converted to any other use under any circumstances

Intra-court appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner, an investigative journalist, sought direction assailing a proposed acquisition of 51% shares of a private company by a foreign buyer vide a share purchase agreement

Contention of the petitioner inter alia was that the said transaction harmed public interest and was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and offended Arts.9, 19-A & 26 of the Constitution

Petitioner further contended that per Art. 19-A of the Constitution, the public had right to information in respect of such transactions

Validity

Contention of the petitioner hardly established a public wrong or public injury warranting redressal by High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution and to accept the petitioner's contentions would open door for an invasion of virtually every private transaction on the touchstone of alleged evasion of some duty or tax etc.

High Court observed that High Court should not embark on roving inquiries into private transactions such as that identified by petitioner under banner of "public interest" especially where there were other regulatory authorities in the field mandated by a statutory responsibility of maintaining vigil their respective spheres

Right to information under Art.19-A of the Constitution was of immense value in promoting transparency by ensuring that citizens had knowledge of matters concerning public administration, but the same did not mean that commercial transactions in the private domain which did not have any direct nexus with matter of public administration be opened up for scrutiny before the courts on touchstone of Art.19-A of the Constitution at behest of any member of public whose curiosity may be piqued

Constitutional petition, therefore, did not fall within the domain of "public interest" was not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed.

Contention of petitioner was that she had fulfilled all the formalities but authorities had not installed water supply meter at her house

Validity

Authorities were bound to supply/provide water to the petitioner when they were charging and collecting water tax from her

Cantonment Board was to ensure adequate and continuous water supply throughout the year not only to the petitioner but also to all the residents within its territorial jurisdiction in consideration of water tax paid by them

Cantonment Board might disentitle itself from charging, claiming or collecting water tax from the residents in case of failure to discharge its statutory duty and function with regard to supply of water

Cantonment Board, in the present case, had not, issued any notice to the petitioner to obtain water from a source of public water supply nor taken necessary steps in that behalf

Constitution had guaranteed fundamental rights to every citizen and also equal treatment vis-a-vis such rights

High Court observed that citizens who were already enjoying such Fundamental Rights should not be deprived of their rights nor such right be curtailed or restricted on the pretext of granting such rights to the new applicants/consumers

Authorities should ensure that permissions and approvals for fresh construction and new water connections were granted without disturbing, restricting or curtailing the rights of all those residents who were already enjoying such rights

Public functionaries should perform their functions and duties for safety, wellbeing and betterment of general public with prudence, vigilance and full responsibility

Question involved in the present case was of Fundamental Right to 'life' and human existence and enjoyment of amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country was entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally

Authorities had stated that they had arranged for additional water bowsers for the residents to whom water was not being supplied on regular basis in the water supply lines and five water bowsers per month would be issued to the residents who applied on line for the same

Constitutional petition was disposed of by High Court on such statement with the direction that Cantonment Board should file compliance report on monthly basis to the High Court and it should not charge water tax from those residents to whom water was not supplied or provided and it should display its said statement on Website and Notice Boards which should not be removed without permission of the Court.