Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
CitationAIR 1982 SC 149
CourtSupreme Court of India (7-Judge Bench)
Date30 December 1981
Year1982
BenchP.N. Bhagwati, A.C. Gupta, S.M. Fazl Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, D.A. Desai, R.S. Pathak, E.S. Venkataramiah JJ.
Acts/ArticlesArticle 124, Article 217, Article 222, Article 32
CategoryConstitutional Law, Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Key Principle Established

Any member of the public can file PIL for enforcement of fundamental rights. Concept of locus standi broadened. Judicial independence and appointment process examined.

Brief Facts

This landmark case challenged the transfer of High Court judges and the non-appointment of certain judges. It raised fundamental questions about judicial independence and the scope of PIL.

Ratio Decidendi

Justice Bhagwati expanded the concept of locus standi:

  • Any member of the public acting bona fide can file a PIL for enforcement of fundamental rights of the disadvantaged
  • The court can treat letters, telegrams as writ petitions
  • Judicial independence is a basic feature but the executive has primacy in judicial appointments (later overruled by the Second and Third Judges Cases)

Impact & Significance

Known as the First Judges Case, it revolutionized access to justice through PIL. While its holding on judicial appointments was overruled, its expansion of PIL locus standi remains the law.

Tags & Related Topics

Constitutional Law Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Article 124 Article 217 Article 222 Article 32
← Previous Judgment Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill
Next Judgment → Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal

Related Judgments

1983

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India

AIR 1983 SC 130, (1983) 1 SCC 305

Pension is a right, not a bounty or gratuitous payment. Classification of pensioners into pre- and post-cutoff date categories for…

Read Analysis
2007

Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Residents Association

(2007) 8 SCC 669

Municipal bodies have a statutory duty to provide basic civic services. Failure to provide water supply, sanitation, and roads is…

Read Analysis
1982

Randhir Singh v. Union of India

(1982) 1 SCC 618

Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal derivable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together.

Read Analysis

Disclaimer

This judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).

Need Case Law Research or Legal Representation?

22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.

Call: +919915442266 WhatsApp

Need Legal Assistance?

Contact Advocate Ravinder Singh Dhull for expert legal guidance on your matter.