CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WITH THE HELP OF ILLUSTRATION

 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS WITH THE HELP OF ILLUSTRATION

S KARTHICK PRAKASH

20BLB1033

A group of public-spirited individuals also filed a Public Interest Litigation before the

Supreme Court of India, Delhi. While the ban on diesel buses and trucks older than five years

did not directly affect private individuals, the Odd-Even formula did, especially those who

have to commute to work and also persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups who

rely on their personal means of transport to get by. The writ petition was based on

allegations of the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens – including Articles 14,

19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS:

The present environmental problems in Delhi, India, are a trouble to the well-being of the

megacity's and area's occupants as well as the foliage and fauna. Delhi, the sixth-most

populated megalopolis in the world, is one of the most heavily defiled metropolises in India,

having for the case one of the country's loftiest volumes of particulate matter pollution. The

megacity suffers from air pollution caused by road dust and assiduity, with comparatively

lower benefactions from sick machines in transportation, especially diesel-powered megacity

motorcars and exchanges, and two-wheelers and three-wheelers with two-stroke machines.

Besides the mortal and environmental damage, pollution has caused profitable damage as well.

It also passed an order to importunity academy motorcars to ply as marketable, public

motorcars after academy had ended in order to encourage the commuters of Delhi to take public

transport rather than calculate solely on their private vehicles. The Modern School of

Environmental Studies, Delhi was plying academy motorcars running on diesel bought in 2005

for academy purposes, and concurrently, all the motorcars were of the odd number series.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED:

Whether taking the schools' own buses is in violation of the Education Act?

Whether a Public Interest can file write a petition under Article 14, 19 & 21?

Whether the writ petition filed by this Public Interest can be maintained or not?

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In the given situation A group of public-spirited individualities also filed a Public Interest

Action before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi. While the ban on diesel motorcars and

exchanges aged five times didn't directly affect private individualities, the Odd- Indeed formula

did, especially those who have to swap to work and also persons with disabilities and other

vulnerable groups who calculate on their particular means of transport to get by. The writ

solicitation was grounded on allegations of the violation of the abecedarian rights of the citizens

– including Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

From bare perusal of Sub Section of Section 2 read with sub-section 47 of the same section 2

it's apparent that in the description of transport vehicle, the educational institution motorcars

have been included the description and order of transport vehicles in malignancy of the fact

that in Sub Section 11 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988, the educational institution motorcars are

independently defined. Thus, in the Central Act of 1988, educational institution machine has

been included along with the public service vehicles, goods carriage at par with a private

service vehicle. This addition of the educational institution machine in the description of

transport vehicle under Sub Section 47 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 isn't under challenge.

As we've formerly stated that the description of the transport vehicle isn't under challenge

before us and learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the supplicant is paying the

road duty on the academy motorcars at par with the duty which is leviable upon the other type

of the vehicles named in the description of the transport vehicle given in Sub Section 47 of

Section 2 of the Act of 1988. Still, also that will make one vehicle covered by one description

in two orders of vehicle If the contention of the writ supplicant is accepted. One for the purpose

of levying of duty and another for the purpose of tax of fresh duty. Likewise, according to the

top writ supplicant itself the duty, in either case, is levied according to vehicles use on the road

and their sitting capacity. 1

The case was in relation to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein directions

were given to implement the order of the Supreme Court to allow only the CNG operated buses

in Delhi and in that matter the educational institution buses were given an exemption by holding

that the educational institution buses are not the commercial vehicles. An issue in this case, in

substance, was, whether school buses are creating the same pollution as at par with other

vehicles. 2 The judgment is also with respect to the challenge to a higher rate of tax under entry

4 of the Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1986 wherein the issue was with respect to the vehicle which

is plied for "hire or reward" and Hon'ble Supreme Court held that vehicles used only as an

1 RAJ KAMAL SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR ASHOK NAGAR DHANBAD JHARKHAND - The

Learning Point Thelearningpoint.net,

2 Case Analysis: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India - Indian Law Portal Indian Law Portal

amenity extended to children of employees to attend school or college then the vehicle cannot

be treated as being plied for hire or reward. Such is not the issue even remotely, here in this

case. 3 wherein also the vehicles in question were used for carrying on employees and their

children under a welfare scheme and those were treated as private service vehicles holding that

passenger tax cannot be levied on such vehicles under the U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatrikar)

Adhiniyam (8 of 1962). 4

We've appertained to the below judgments only because of the reason that learned counsel for

the petitioner believes that those judgments support the petitioner's case whereas the data of

the case appertained above easily demonstrate that those were the cases wherein the issue

wasn't at each involved that whether the educational institution machine is a transport vehicle

or not and addition of the educational institution machine in the description of the transport

vehicle under Sub Section 47 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 is extremist vires to the

Composition 14 of the Constitution of India, thus, those judgments have no operation to the

data of this case. The learned counsel has vehemently submitted that there's a clear breach of

the vittles of Composition 21 of the Constitution by the Idgah Slaughter House. He submitted

that breath is life. If a man is deprived of pure air and water he can not survive. The right to

live with quality is dependent on the right to live in safe terrain. A man requires 3-4 pounds of

solids, he requires 7-8 pounds of water and 45-50 pounds of air per day. If a human inhales

toxic air and drinks polluted water, he cannot lead a healthy life. Right under Article 21 does

not mean that continuance of a man with animal existence but a right of possession of each of

the organs such as arms, legs, the life of environment are indivisible. Nature and the

environment concern the entire society. 5

3 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs Registering Authority & Ors on 10 September 1999

4 Hindalco Industries Ltd. And ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 15 November, 1995

5 Maneka Gandhi vs Union Territory Of Delhi And Ors. on 18 March 1984

JUDGEMENT

From the available data, it's clear that a writ petition under Article & 21 was filed by Public

Interest Action. the educational institution machine is a transport vehicle or not and addition of

the educational institution machine in the description of the transport vehicle under Sub Section

47 of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 is extremist vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution of

India right under Article 21 doesn't mean that continuance of a man with beast actuality but a

right of possession of each of the organs similar as arms, legs, the life of terrain are inseparable.

Nature and the terrain concern the entire society violation of abecedarian rights guaranteed

under Article 19. Thus, from the available data it's clear that the writ petition filed by this Public

Interest Action In view of the below reason, we don't find any merit in this writ petition which

is consequently dismissed.