Date of the Judgment: 15 July 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 458
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Can a High Court issue directions on matters not specifically raised in a writ petition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limits of a High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This case arose from a writ petition concerning the removal of an LCD screen, but the High Court also issued a direction banning the use of DJs, which was not part of the original petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot expand the scope of a writ petition to include issues not specifically pleaded or prayed for, especially when it affects the rights of parties not involved in the original litigation. The judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, speaking for a two-judge bench.
Case Background
The case began when Sushil Chandra Srivastava and another individual (respondents 1 and 2) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Their primary concern was the removal of an LCD screen from Hashimpur Chauraha, Prayagraj. The writ petition sought the following reliefs:
- ✓ A direction to remove the LCD from Hashimpur Chauraha immediately.
- ✓ Any other suitable direction as the Court deemed fit.
- ✓ Award of the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.
The High Court, while addressing these prayers, issued nine directions on August 20, 2019. However, direction number (iii) went beyond the scope of the original petition by prohibiting the use of DJs due to noise pollution concerns. This direction stated that no permission for DJs should be granted as the noise generated is unpleasant and beyond permissible limits according to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
The appellants, who were not parties to the original writ petition but were affected by the ban on DJs, challenged this specific direction. They argued that the issue of noise pollution from DJs was never raised in the writ petition, nor was there any prayer for such a direction.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| NA | Respondents 1 and 2 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad seeking removal of LCD screen. |
| 20 August 2019 | The High Court issued nine directions, including a ban on DJs. |
| NA | Appellants, affected by the DJ ban, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. |
| 15 July 2021 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court’s direction regarding DJs. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while considering the writ petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 concerning the removal of an LCD screen, issued a direction banning the use of DJs. This direction was not sought by the petitioners in the writ petition. The appellants, who were affected by this direction but were not parties to the original writ petition, appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s direction regarding DJs. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts the power to issue writs. The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, were also referenced, particularly concerning the permissible noise levels. The appellants contended that their right to play music in public places was protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, were mentioned in the High Court’s judgment, which stated, “Under the Rules, 2000, no permission for DJ shall be granted by the authority for the reason that noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level. Even if they are operated at the minimum level of the sound it is beyond permissible limits under the Schedule of the Rules, 2000.”
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- ✓ The appellants argued that the High Court’s direction banning DJs was beyond the scope of the original writ petition, which only concerned the removal of an LCD screen.
- ✓ They contended that there were no pleadings or prayers in the writ petition regarding the noise generated by DJs.
- ✓ The appellants asserted that they have a right to play music in public places after obtaining a license from the District Authority under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
- ✓ They argued that the High Court’s direction infringed upon their right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- ✓ The private respondents (original writ petitioners) argued that the High Court could issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if the issue was not explicitly raised in the writ petition, to expand the scope of the writ petition.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Allahabad Development Authority’s Arguments:
- ✓ The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Allahabad Development Authority stated that they were bound to comply with the High Court’s directions and had been restricting the use of DJs, except where stay orders had been granted by the Supreme Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| High Court’s direction on DJ ban is beyond the scope of the writ petition. |
|
Appellants |
| Right to livelihood is affected by the DJ ban. |
|
Appellants |
| High Court can expand the scope of the writ petition under Article 226. |
|
Respondents 1 and 2 |
| Duty to comply with High Court’s directions. |
|
State of Uttar Pradesh and Allahabad Development Authority |
The innovativeness of the argument from the appellants was that they highlighted the infringement of their fundamental right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which was not considered by the High Court.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:
- ✓ Whether the High Court could issue a direction regarding the ban on DJs when the issue was not part of the original writ petition’s pleadings or prayers.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court could issue a direction regarding the ban on DJs when the issue was not part of the original writ petition’s pleadings or prayers. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction was not justified. The Court stated that a writ petition filed for a specific cause and prayer cannot be expanded to cover issues of general or public importance without specific pleadings or prayers. It emphasized that affected parties should be impleaded, especially in cases not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its judgment, other than mentioning Article 19(1)(g) and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
| Authority | Type | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India | Legal Provision | The Court acknowledged the appellants’ argument that the High Court’s direction infringed upon their right to livelihood. |
| Article 226, Constitution of India | Legal Provision | The Court clarified that the High Court’s power to issue writs under Article 226 is not unlimited and cannot be used to expand the scope of a writ petition beyond its pleadings and prayers. |
| Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 | Legal Provision | The Court acknowledged that the appellants have a right to play music in public places only after obtaining license from the District Authority under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court treated the submission |
|---|---|
| Appellants: High Court’s direction on DJ ban is beyond the scope of the writ petition. | The Court agreed with the appellants and held that the High Court’s direction was not justified. The Court stated that a writ petition filed for a specific cause and prayer cannot be expanded to cover issues of general or public importance without specific pleadings or prayers. |
| Appellants: Right to livelihood is affected by the DJ ban. | The Court acknowledged that the High Court’s direction affected the livelihood of the appellants. |
| Respondents 1 and 2: High Court can expand the scope of the writ petition under Article 226. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that Article 226 does not allow for expanding the scope of a writ petition beyond its pleadings and prayers. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh and Allahabad Development Authority: Duty to comply with High Court’s directions. | The Court acknowledged that the State and Authority were bound to comply with the High Court’s directions, but clarified that the High Court’s direction itself was not justified. |
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s direction (iii) regarding the ban on DJs. The Court held that the High Court cannot expand the scope of a writ petition to include issues not specifically pleaded or prayed for, especially when it affects the rights of parties not involved in the original litigation.
The Court stated that, “The Writ Petition having been filed for a particular cause and with a particular prayer cannot be expanded to cover within its ambit all the issues which may be of general or public importance without there being any pleadings or prayer with regard to a particular issue.”
The Court also noted that, “prior to passing any such order of public importance, the affected parties should be impleaded, at least in a representative capacity, which is not done in the present case.”
The Court clarified that the appellants and other such persons may be permitted to play music/DJ in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from the concerned authorities.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle that a High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not unlimited. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, stating that affected parties must be given an opportunity to be heard, especially in matters that impact their rights and livelihoods. The Court’s reasoning focused on the fact that the High Court’s direction regarding DJs was not based on any pleadings or prayers in the original writ petition and that the affected parties were not given a chance to present their case.
| Sentiment Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice | 40% |
| Limitation of Writ Jurisdiction | 30% |
| Protection of Livelihood | 20% |
| Adherence to Pleadings and Prayers | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles of procedural fairness and the limitations of writ jurisdiction. The factual aspect of the case was that the High Court had issued a direction on a matter that was not part of the original writ petition. The legal aspect was that the High Court cannot expand the scope of a writ petition to include issues not specifically pleaded or prayed for.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ High Courts cannot issue directions on issues not raised in the original writ petition.
- ✓ Affected parties must be impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard before any orders affecting their rights are passed.
- ✓ The scope of a writ petition cannot be expanded to include matters of general or public importance without specific pleadings or prayers.
- ✓ Individuals may play music/DJ after obtaining the necessary license/permission from the concerned authorities.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellants or any other such persons may be permitted to play music/DJ only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from the concerned authorities.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot expand the scope of a writ petition to include issues not specifically pleaded or prayed for, especially when it affects the rights of parties not involved in the original litigation. This judgment reinforces the principle of procedural fairness and the limitations of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It clarifies that High Courts must adhere to the pleadings and prayers made in a writ petition and cannot issue directions on matters that are not directly related to the original cause of action. This ruling does not change any previous positions of law, but rather clarifies the existing legal framework.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sachin Kashyap & Ors. vs. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors. clarifies the limitations on a High Court’s power to issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that a High Court cannot expand the scope of a writ petition to include issues not specifically pleaded or prayed for, especially when it affects the rights of parties not involved in the original litigation. This judgment ensures that procedural fairness is maintained and that the rights of individuals are protected.
Category
- Constitutional Law
- Article 226, Constitution of India
- Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Scope of Writ Petition
- Limits of High Court’s Power
- Noise Pollution
- Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
- DJ Ban
- Fundamental Rights
- Right to Livelihood
- Procedural Law
- Pleadings and Prayers
- Impleadment of Parties
- Article 226, Constitution of India
- Article 226, Constitution of India
- Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India
- Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Sachin Kashyap case?
A: The main issue was whether a High Court could issue a direction banning DJs when the issue was not part of the original writ petition’s pleadings or prayers.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the High Court’s direction banning DJs was not justified because it went beyond the scope of the original writ petition.
Q: Can a High Court issue directions on any issue under Article 226 of the Constitution?
A: No, a High Court’s power under Article 226 is not unlimited. It cannot issue directions on issues not specifically raised in the writ petition.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment for the general public?
A: This judgment clarifies that High Courts must adhere to the pleadings and prayers made in a writ petition and cannot issue directions on matters that are not directly related to the original cause of action. It also ensures that affected parties are given an opportunity to be heard.
Q: Can individuals still play music/DJ in public places?
A: Yes, individuals can play music/DJ in public places after obtaining the necessary license/permission from the concerned authorities, in accordance with the law.
Q: What does the judgment say about the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000?
A: The judgment acknowledges that individuals have a right to play music in public places after obtaining a license under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.