High Courts Guardians Of Fundamental Rights & Constitution, Must Not Mechanically Dismiss Writ Petitions Over Delays And Laches : Supreme Court

In the case where Rs.5 lakhs honorarium was awarded to an 83-yr old ex-constable who saved lives by killing a dacoit in 1986, the Supreme Court recently held that High Courts in the country should not mechanically dismiss writ petitions seeking enforcement of fundamental rights on the ground of 'delay and laches', without considering all relevant factors.

For context, the petitioner in this case was recommended for Gallantry Award by Superintendent of Police, Banda. He approached the High Court praying for a mandamus to the authorities to act on the said recommendation. However, the High Court rejected his plea, being of the view that he approached the court belatedly.

With a "deep sense of regret", the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had an opportunity to remedy a wrong, but failed to seize it.

"The writ petition of the appellant provided an opportunity to the High Court to right the wrong which, unfortunately, it failed to seize. It is with a deep sense of regret that we end the discussion here expressing hope that as the sentinel on the qui vive, the high courts in the country would do well not to mechanically dismiss writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches without considering all the relevant factors", said a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Further, it was observed that the petitioner's delay in approaching the High Court was sought to be explained by his repeated unyielding requests to authorities, but the High Court mechanically brushed aside the same.

"this is a case where the appellant sought to explain the belated approach by referring to his repeated unyielding persuasions, which the High Court brushed aside mechanically, without appreciating that the appellant had invoked its writ jurisdiction for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution."

Distinguishing a case alleging breach of fundamental rights from a case alleging breach of a statutory right, the Court added: "When a litigant approaches a high court invoking its high prerogative writ jurisdiction with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the impugned State action is in breach of his Fundamental Right and claims that the breach be bridged by issuing appropriate writ/order/direction as distinguished from a claim for enforcement of a statutory right, it partakes the character of a duty on the part of such high court to enforce the right breached as the guardian of the Constitution."

Explaining the legal position, the Court also stipulated the following factors that may be kept in mind by High Courts while dealing with cases involving unexplained delay:

- Whether there is accrual of a parallel right in favor of a third party;

- Whether grant of relief is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience (like unsettling matters which have long settled);

- If by reason of the delay, the official respondents are hopelessly inconvenienced in defending their action for lack of relevant records and to establish their defense to the full satisfaction of the court.

Ultimately, the High Court order was set aside, with the following observation,

"Notwithstanding delay, which might not have been explained to the full satisfaction of a high court, we hold that in cases where a high court finds that facts, as they have been presented, are not seriously disputed, no further investigation into facts is required to be made, the relief claimed in the petition was otherwise due to the writ petitioner and the same would have followed as a matter of course and been granted had he approached the high court without delay, it would be iniquitous and inappropriate to deny relief for no better reason than that the relief has been belatedly claimed."

Case Title: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., SLP(C) No.26568/2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 993

Click here to read the order