Skip to main content

letter to CJ of Delhi High Court on public issue

                              Chief Justice of Delhi High Court

Respected sir, 

My name is Prashant Sharma, a public spirited citizen & law student, an intern at Lexus & Company, New Delhi. 

 My contention for writing this letter is to draw attention upon the serious water crisis issue in the JJ Colony, where people are poor & ignorant about rights in law. Since last 2 months, residents of JJ Colony were facing serious drinking water problem due to which people are suffering in term of health, hygiene, law & order. Earlier the government used to send water tank on daily basis. Water level has gone down and pump sets are prohibited by the government. 

the residents of JJ Colony, who are unable to get access proper drinking water resulted in the infringement of Right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In the case of Delhi Water Supply & Sewage V. State of Haryana (1996) & Chameli Singh V. State of U.P. (1996) Supreme Court of India held that right to access proper drinking water is a Fundamental Right. In the case of State of Orissa V. Govt. of India (2009) Supreme Court held that issue of water scarcity should be solved as early as possible, if required a committee of learned scientist shall be appointed to solve the water crisis issue. According to National water policy released in 2012 provided that there is only 4% of renewable water in India where 80% of world population resides, the government spend roughly around Rs 89000 Crore in the 12th five year plan during 2012-2017 to solve water crisis issue in the country. In the CAG report on National Rural Drinking water program where the government achieved only 44% of population get drinking water, 17% of the household get water supply through pipelines. According to survey there are 21 states ignorant about water crisis in their respective states & there is no water policy. In 2000, water & Sanitation advocacy group released its report on quantity & quality of drinking water where India ranked in least 10 countries in term of water availability. The average per capita water availability in 2001 is 1820 cubic metres, whereas in 2011 it dropped to 1545 cubic metres. According to prediction in the year 2025 average per capita water  availability will be reduced to 1341 cubic metres. As per the ministry of Jal Shakti report on annual water availability, average per capita water availability of less than 1700 cubic meters is considered as water stressed condition, in case of below 1000 per capita water supply annually considered as water scarcity condition.

I would like to suggest remedies to the resident of JJ Colony regarding water crisis issue, they can file writ petition under article 226 in the High Court & article 32 in the Supreme Court of India. 

                         
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more