MADHU V HOLAMAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in Mumbai and claims that he was the President of Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association and a social activist, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present Public Interest Litigation. While referring to the great leaders of the Nation and the freedom struggle during the British Rule prior to 1947, it is contended by the petitioner that during the crisis the U.S.S.R. was the supporter and Pakistan and U.S. could not succeed in dividing India and/or destroying the economy of India. Referring to the present Government at the Centre as a coalition Government, it is averred by the petitioner that the economy of the country is progressing and however there is complete confusion, insecurity with regard to the existence and continuation of the Government because of nuclear deal with the U.S. which is being opposed by various parties including the parties who are supporting, that is Left party being the Communist party. The "Agreement 123" is being challenged by different parties and persons and the stability of the Nation is challenged and is in danger. Thus, according to the petitioner, unless appropriate consideration and interpretation by judicial process is made, there would be great chaos in the Nation and the present situation does not warrant that there should be election being a mid term election by which the economy of the Nation would be jeopardized and that, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court praying that the Court should invoke its public interest litigation and judicial activism and also under the Constitution of India, its power to interpret law and agreement 123 and should remove all misunderstanding and, if necessary, give advise or pass such other orders as may be necessary. On these averments, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in this Public Interest Litigation :-

(2.) When the petition came up for hearing, the petitioner also informed the Court that he was moving an application being Civil Application No. 35 of 2008 in the present Public Interest Litigation, praying that since the No Confidence or Trust Vote fixed for 21st/22nd July, 2008, a request be made to the President of India and the Speaker to postpone the same and allow the parties to consider and re-consider the approach and to avoid any turmoil of national interest and other hardships which are likely to be caused to the common man.

(3.) We heard the petitioner who persisted with his arguments for some time. At the outset, we had mentioned to the petitioner as to whether this was at all a Public Interest Litigation and could such a Petition at all be maintainable under any provision of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.