PRASANNA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, four in number, are before this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction which, being couched in comprehensive phraseology, confers wide powers on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found, as stated in Dwarkanath v. I. T. O. , A. I. R. 1966 S. C 81. The language of this Article permits every High Court not only to issue writs of habeas-corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, which were being issued in England, but also to issue such directions or orders which the situation demands to meet the requirements of a case. In Basappa v. Nagappa, A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 440, it was stated that the language used in Article 226 was very wide and the powers of the High Court extended to issuing orders, writs or directions as may be considered necessary for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes as well.

(2.) WE have prefaced the judgment with these observations because Shri Nanda appearing for the opposite parties submitted, on Shri Dora placing before us a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in which in a similar matter the Court had granted relief "as a special case and on humanitarian ground", that Courts cannot grant relief on humanitarian ground or being of the view that mercy demands the relief. We, therefore, desired Shri Nanda to know that writ power of this Court is very wide and it can reach injustice wherever it is found and pass such orders to remedy the injustice which the Court may think fit and proper. Justice has to be tempered with mercy; it cannot appear cruel, and even where an offender of law is sentenced to death, the judicial act is not an instance of cruelty, it is rather performed in larger public interest which has to prevail over individual interest. Such an act performed with heavy heart is a duty which has to be discharged for greater good of the society.

(3.) THE above apart, a writ Court shall have to see the reasonableness of the action to protect violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. A particular action would seem unreasonable if justice of the case would satisfy the Court that the particular action was not called for on the facts and circumstances of the case. We thus see injustice and unreasonableness come very close and in some cases the dividing line may disappear. So, injustice done to a particular individual or class of persons may be regarded as unreasonable act by a writ Court permitting it to interfere with the same and pass appropriate order to take care of the injustice. If there be discrimination, interference by a writ Court can be claimed as a matter of right.