Zany (Assistant Manager) 14 December 2012

Petition in supreme court for contempt

Based on the following points, can i file a Writ Petition under Supreme Court against a Doctor of a Government Hospital for witholding rights without giving any reason and consideration?

As per RTI reply, one Dr. of a Govt Hospital "opined" that since the candidate for employment has to take medicines throughout life, he is unfit for employment in Central and State Govt. Offices
An analoguous case has been agitated before the High Court of Bombay and the court allowed the Writ Petition in favour of the candidate and ordered to offer employment to the candidate too.
No consideration was given to Article 14, 16(1) and 21 of the constitution.
The said Doctor, without referring to anything, not even medical reports "just on the basis of his opinion" rejected the candidature, thus showing bias attitude and prejudice against the candidate.
The opinion of the Doctor caused the candidate mental agony and precious time as case with same analogy has been decided before and court order was in favour of the candidate.

Since basic fundamental rights was not given any consideration, can this petition has been filed under Artcile 226 of the constitution.

I know CAT is an option, but can i file a Writ Petition in Supreme Court against the Doctor for absuing his power and deciding about my case without any consideration and on the basis of the above mentioned points?

Reply Follow

1 Replies

Nu.Delhi.Law.Fora. (Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court of India) 15 December 2012

Dear Querist,

You may approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the violation of any of your legal right. For approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, there must necessarily be violation of fundamental rights.

SC is the guardian of the constitution. This position has been enforced by Art 32 that given any citizen to petition the SC if his fundamental rights are violated. The SC is empowered to give directions, orders, or writs including the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari for the enforcement of the rights given in part III.

L Chandra Kumar vs Union of India (1997) may be referred to and relied upon.

In the case of Basappa vs Naggapa, (1954), SC has held that the Article 226 confers wide powers to remedy injustice where ever it is found. Art 226 says, "...or writs or the kind of...", which means that it is not limited only the mentioned types of writs. It can issue orders orders of any kind that the situation may require. Thus, it makes the scope of Art. 226 a lot wider than Art. 32.

However, you may note that the remedy available in Art. 226 is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has the discretion to accept or refuse a petition. In general, if a remedy is available elsewhere, writs under Art. 226 are discourages. However, this does not mean that any remedy available can be a ground for not entertaining the petition under 226. The remedy must be effective and sufficient. In the case of Vellaswamy v IG Police, Madras (1982), SC held that the remedy under Police Rules of TN was not sufficient and so High Court was wrong in dismissing the petition.

Trust this would suffice to take appropriate decsion.