[Landmark Judgement] R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India (2022)2 min read
Published on: 03 October 2022 at 13:35 IST
Court – High Court of Bombay
Citation – R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2657
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that the Writ petitions under Article 226 can be directed against private entities for the discharge of any public duties. It is held that the phrase “any person or authority” has been interpreted to mean one that exercises a “public duty” or a “public function” under the aegis of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is held that Public Duty is a duty which is owed to the public at large or to a section of the public and is not merely one relatable to the functions performed by the Government or the Sovereign.
Para – 16
Referring to Article 226 of the Constitution, and more particularly the power of a High Court to “issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose”, the history of the conception of Article 226 was sought to be traced.
Mr. Singhvi submitted that as can be gleaned from the Constituent Assembly Debates, the same clarify that the words “any person” must receive a broad meaning. It is also in this backdrop that the Supreme Court had cautioned against strictly adopting the principles governing the issuance of prerogative writs in England.
Drafted by Abhijit Mishra
Key Words – Privatization, Employees, Service Conditions,