tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post7775500719107084770..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Naz Foundation case: UpdateAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-15128652886531814802010-04-08T23:52:46.210+05:302010-04-08T23:52:46.210+05:30Even in criminal cases, it is often the near &...Even in criminal cases, it is often the near & dear ones of the deceased who file the appeal if the state does not choose to do so.<br /><br />Many SLPs have been filed by my office where the victim is dead and the prosecuting agency does not appeal from the HC order and many of them have been admitted by SC and the orders of the following nature have been passed:<br />"Leave granted/Issue notice. Permission to file SLP is granted."<br /><br />The principal is the same in appeals and appeal with special leave.<br /><br />But yes, the new party has to show exactly why it is so aggrieved so as to challenge the decision of the lower court. This is extremely essential. I can't file an appeal in a case between 2 residents of Tripura fighting a property case unless I am personally aggrieved. In a public interest matter, everyone can and should be allowed to appeal, provided he/she does some research and does not file a half-baked petition.Pranav Sachdevahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03039589469816306633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-52527114613666075472010-04-08T16:23:42.715+05:302010-04-08T16:23:42.715+05:30Facts in Laloo Yadav and Naz are obviously, not id...Facts in Laloo Yadav and Naz are obviously, not identical. So what? <br /><br />What is the legal principle in Laloo Yadav which is extinguished upon introduction of different set of facts? Does Naz involve such a set of different facts?<br /><br />Certainly not. The Laloo Yadav judgment goes very far, as a principle of law. <br /><br />To suggest that whatever principle of law that the Laloo Yadav judgment espouses is merely a principle for that case and that, it should fail to operate upon a different set of facts is obviously, unacceptable unless one first circumscribes that principle to a range of facts and identifies a special relationship between those facts and that principle - so that, upon diversity in facts, the principle loses its application. So, I expect that those who disagree with the post, will do well to get to the heart of the legal principle in Laloo Yadav and to begin their analysis thereafter. <br /><br /><br />Why are Naz appeals immune from the principle in Laloo Yadav? <br /><br />A special leave petition is nothing more than a varied form of statutory appeal - a right is removed from the appellant while a power is still retained in the appellate court to entertain the appeal. <br /><br />How does this diminution in the right of an appellant inform whether the appeal court could permit an original litigant to be substituted by another for the purpose of the appeal?<br /><br />The power to entertain an appeal to the exclusion of a right in a party to insist upon appeal does not act as a source of power to also permit a different party to appeal as a substitute for the original litigant. A power to so permit a substitute party to appeal in place of the original litigant has no relation whatsoever to whether a Court sits as a court of appeal or as a court of appeal on special leave.<br /><br />Rest of the arguments founded on other considerations weren't available to Bihar Government to similarly justify its appeal? What is there in Laloo Yadav judgment so as to limit its application to a criminal case only and not to a civil matter? What is the essential difference between a criminal and civil matter and why does any such difference inform a court differently as to its powers to permit a substitute in criminal cases only and not in civil matters? <br /><br />Then, the public policy arguments. Where is the discussion in Laloo Yadav upon public policy considerations? So, if public policy considerations should lead to a different result in Naz appeals, how can Laloo Yadav judgment continue as a good law - barely a week after it is delivered?<br /><br />If you wish to slam the Laloo Yadav judgment, please feel free to do so. But, do not wish away the consequences of that judgment upon the powers of an appellate court. I would be surprised if you wish to keep the Laloo judgment without also conceding a drastic and tumultuous curtailment in the the appellate powers of superior courts of law. The conclusion in Laloo Yadav, if faithfully applied, is bound to emphatically overwhelm those who desire that the unspecified powers of an appellate Court should be informed by public policy considerations.K.V.DHANANJAYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05545845529229026684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-22329060062693185642010-04-08T16:04:51.279+05:302010-04-08T16:04:51.279+05:30Extending the last commentator's logic, that w...Extending the last commentator's logic, that would imply that any member of the public would also have the right to bring an SLP on a matter even if the original petitioner in an PIL case choose to accept the verdict of a High Court which had ruled against the PIL on merits. <br /><br />Also, interestingly, the line of precedent I'm familiar with on the matter of interveners in India seems to indicate that overall interveners do not have separate rights to appeal against verdicts if the original petitioners and/or respondents do not do so.Raman Jit Singh Chimahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03414281931924134900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-42424751274621807822010-04-08T12:17:33.331+05:302010-04-08T12:17:33.331+05:30The Lalu Prasad Yadav case dealt with the competen...The Lalu Prasad Yadav case dealt with the competence of the state government to file an appeal before the High Court against the acquittal. The Naz Foundation case, as Tarunabh rightly points out is an SLP before the Supreme Court and there is nothing in the judgment which expressly bars the same. Second, the Lalu Prasad Yadav case dealt with an appeal against an acquittal filed by a non-party, which squarely leads to questions of competence and locus. The Naz foundation case is a constitutional matter, which if I understand rightly was a public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court. Legally, the matter before the Supreme Court is filed by way of SLP and the Supreme Court thus has discretion whether to grant leave or not. Hence it seems to me, the fact of not being party to an earlier proceeding on the same matter in the High Court cannot be an in limine bar for filing the SLP. Even morally, if certain sections of the public have a right to bring the PIL to the High Court in the first place, other sections of the public aggrieved by the decision have a similar right to bring an SLP before the Supreme Court on this matter. The state, the respondent in the proceeding cannot be seen as the repository of the remaining sections of the public (who ostensibly do not support the petition) since this is not a criminal matter like the Lalu Prasad Yadav case was.Ajathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649485393629833863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-22802597340203236972010-04-08T05:15:20.283+05:302010-04-08T05:15:20.283+05:30strictly speaking, parties have filed SLPs in the ...strictly speaking, parties have filed SLPs in the Naz case - no one has 'appealed'. haven't seen the yadav judgment, but does it apply to SLPs too?Tarunabh Khaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07234574402062317396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-58288563706241591972010-04-07T23:54:30.621+05:302010-04-07T23:54:30.621+05:30Dhananjay post tells us exactly why the decision i...Dhananjay post tells us exactly why the decision in Lalu's case is horribly wrong. The present CJI has lowered the SC standards.<br /><br />Day in and day out appeals are filed by parties who were not a party in the court below. That's why in many SC orders it is noted "permission to file SLP is granted."<br /><br />Also on facts, Bihar govt had a legitimate claim to file the criminal appeal after acquittal by a CBI court since the public exchequer of that state had to bear the burden of the scam in which Lalu was allegedly involved.Pranav Sachdevahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03039589469816306633noreply@blogger.com