High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 03 DEL CK 0066

A Rajarajan vs Honourable Chairperson Rep. Through Secretary General

Delhi High Court · Decided on 4 March 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, CJ · C. Hari Shankar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2540 Of 2020, Civil Miscellaneous No. 8869 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 291 words

D.N. Patel, CJ

W.P.(C) 2540/2020

1.

This so-called Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred with the following prayers:

“A. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order, directing the present Respondent i.e. the National Human Rights Commission

to intervene and investigate about the physical and mental conditions of the four death convicts with the aid and assistance of unbiased

experts from relevant field and submit the report before this Hon'ble Court.

B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order, directing the present Respondent to Investigate or Inquire and submit a Report

before this Hon'ble Court with regard to the Human Rights Violations Committed by the concerned authorities against the Four Convicts in

Sessions Case No. 114 of 2013 presently Lodged in Central Prison No.3, Tihar.

C. Pass any other order directing the respondent to act proactively and swiftly.

D. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.â€​

2.

We have heard the petitioner in person, who has prayed the above prayers. The petitioner submits that he has chosen to invoke the discretionary

writ jurisdiction, without approaching the National Human Rights Commission at the first instance.

3.

We express our dismay in exercising our extraordinary writ jurisdiction especially when the petitioner has not exhausted his other alternative

efficacious remedies in law; therefore, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition.

4.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the National Human Rights Commission or any other appropriate fora as deem fit.

5.

With these observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

CM APPL. 8869/2020 (stay)

1.

In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application is disposed of.