Introduction
In the Indian legal system, the concept of locus standi, or the right of a person to appear and bring action in court, is a fundamental aspect of litigation. This article analyses a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which provides significant insights into the rights of third parties and the concept of locus standi in the context of caste certificate verification.
Background
The case in question is “Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors” decided on 8 November, 2012. The judgment is a comprehensive examination of the rights of third parties in the context of caste certificate verification, and the concept of locus standi, or the right of a person to bring an action in court. The case revolves around the issue of caste certificate verification. The appellant, Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan, was appointed as a Police Constable on the basis of a caste certificate that identified him as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.
The challenge to the Caste Certificate
The respondent, No. 5, challenged the validity of the caste certificate issued to the appellant. The Scrutiny Committee conducted an inquiry into the matter and upheld the validity of the caste certificate.
Appeal to the High Court
The respondent, dissatisfied with the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, approached the High Court. The High Court set aside the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and directed it to conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter.
Supreme Court Proceedings
The appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, appealed to the Supreme Court. The main contention of the appellant was that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who were examined before the Scrutiny Committee.
The Doctrine of “Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta”
The doctrine of “Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta” is a Latin term which translates to “all acts are presumed to have been done rightly and regularly”. This presumption can be rebutted by adducing appropriate evidence. Mere statement made in the written statement/petition is not enough to rebut the presumption. The onus of rebuttal lies upon the person who alleges that the act had not been regularly performed or the procedure required under the law had not been followed [Paragraph 45].
In the context of the case, the court applied this doctrine to the actions of the Scrutiny Committee, which had conducted an inquiry into the matter. The court noted that the Scrutiny Committee had examined the matter and after investigation through its Vigilance Cell and considering all the documentary evidence on record, granted the caste verification certificate. The court stated that a very strong material/evidence is required to rebut the presumption that the Scrutiny Committee’s actions were done rightly and regularly.
Rights of Third Parties and Locus Standi
The court held that the respondent no. 5, who was a third party, did not have the locus standi to challenge the caste certificate of the appellant. The court found that respondent no. 5 had not been pursuing the matter in a bonafide manner, and had not raised any public interest, rather he abused the process of the court only to harass the appellant [Paragraph 47].
Public Interest Litigation vs. Public Law Litigation
The court distinguished between Public Interest Litigation and Public Law Litigation. It held that Public Interest Litigation is essentially a right-based litigation for the poor and the disadvantaged, who cannot afford the expenses of court fees, lawyer’s fees and other incidental costs of litigation. On the other hand, Public Law Litigation is brought before the court, not for the enforcement of any right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed [Paragraph 24].
What did the Supreme court hold:
The Supreme Court held that the right to cross-examine witnesses is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to dispose of the appellant’s application for calling the witnesses for cross-examination and to give him a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Court also restrained respondent No. 5 from intervening in the matter any further and imposed costs on him for abusing the process of the court only to harass the appellant.
Conclusion
The court concluded that respondent no. 5 did not have the locus standi to challenge the caste certificate of the appellant. The court found that respondent no. 5 had not been pursuing the matter in a bonafide manner, and had not raised any public interest, rather he abused the process of the court only to harass the appellant. The respondent no. 5 was restrained from intervening in the matter any further, and also from remaining a party to it. He was also liable to pay costs to the tune of Rs. one lakh, within a period of 4 weeks to the District Collector, Aurangabad. The District Collector, Aurangabad, was directed to deposit the said amount in the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. In the event that, the cost imposed is not deposited by respondent no. 5 within the period stipulated, the District Collector, Aurangabad, was requested to recover the same as arrears of land revenue and deposit the same, accordingly [Paragraph 47].
This case serves as a significant precedent in understanding the rights of third parties and the concept of locus standi in the context of caste certificate verification. It underscores the importance of bonafide intent and public interest in the pursuit of legal action, particularly in cases where the petitioner is not directly affected by the outcome. The judgment also sheds light on the distinction between Public Interest Litigation and Public Law Litigation, emphasizing the role of the former in protecting the rights of the disadvantaged. Furthermore, it provides a practical application of the doctrine of “Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta”, reinforcing the principle that all acts are presumed to have been done rightly and regularly unless proven otherwise. This comprehensive analysis of various legal concepts and principles, as applied in this case, contributes significantly to the broader discourse on third party rights and locus standi in the Indian legal system.
The Supreme Court referred to the following judgments in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors:
- Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 708
- Context: This case was referred to in the discussion of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to cross-examine witnesses. The court held that denial of the right to cross-examine amounts to a denial of the right to be heard i.e., audi alteram partem. [Paragraph 24]
- New India Assurance Company Ltd . v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr., AIR 2008 SC 876
- Context: This case was considered in relation to a case under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The court held that the right of cross-examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. [Paragraph 25]
- Rachpal Singh & Ors. v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2448
- Context: This case was referred to along with other cases in the discussion of the principles of natural justice and the right to cross-examination. [Paragraph 24]
- Biecco Lawrie & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 142
- Context: This case was referred to along with other cases in the discussion of the principles of natural justice and the right to cross-examination. [Paragraph 24]
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131
- Context: This case was referred to along with other cases in the discussion of the principles of natural justice and the right to cross-examination. [Paragraph 24]
- Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (2005) 10 SCC 634
- Context: This case was considered while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically regarding the permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. [Paragraph 24]
- K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 273
- Context: This case was held that, in order to sustain a complaint of the violation of the principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity of cross-examination, it must be established that some prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the procedure followed. [Paragraph 26]
- Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850
- Context: This case was referred to in the context of the right to cross-examination and the principles of natural justice. [Paragraph 26]
- Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 32
- Context: This case was referred to in the context of the right to cross-examination and the principles of natural justice. [Paragraph 26]
- Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, AIR 2006 SC 1445
- Context: This case was held that in order to establish that the cross-examination is necessary, the consumer has to make out a case for the same. [Paragraph 27]
- Gopal Narain v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 370:
- This case was referred to in the context of discussing the presumption that all acts are presumed to have been done rightly and regularly. This presumption can be rebutted by providing appropriate evidence. The onus of rebuttal lies upon the person who alleges that the act had not been regularly performed or the procedure required under the law had not been followed.
- Narayan Govind Gavate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 183:
- This case was referred to in the same context as the Gopal Narain case, discussing the presumption of regularity of acts and the onus of rebuttal.