ISSUE 1:- The Special Leave Petition (SLP) is maintainable and the NGO has the locus

standi to impugn the judgement of the High Court.

1. It is humbly submitted that the special leave petition filed by the NGO against the judgment of
Hon’ble high court of Paristhan is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
It is contended that the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 can always be invoked
1.1 When a question of law of general public importance arises and even question of fact can
also be a subject matter of judicial review.
1.2 The issues involves substantial question of law.
Art. 136:-Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and
sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under
any law relating to the Armed Forces1.

1.1 The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are corrective one and not a restrictive
one2.A duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in
the judgments is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and
failure by the SC to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be
perpetuated3. It has been held in plethora of cases that when the question of law of general
public importance arises, the jurisdiction of SC can be invoked by filing special leave
petition. In the present case, the issue involves matter of General Public Importance and
hence, entitled to be maintainable. It has been held by Hon’ble Court that when a question
of law, of general public importance arises, or a decision shocks the conscience of the court,
its jurisdiction can always be invoked. Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice

1
PARISTHAN CONST. art. 136, (Bare Act).
2
Haryana State Industrial Corpn. V. Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359 (SC).
3
Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana (2003)11 SCC 241 (SC); see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th
edn. Vol 1 2010); see also Halsbury’s Laws of India (Vol. 35 2007).
 where the court is satisfied that there is injustice4. The principle is that this court would
never do injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated for the sake of upholding
technicalities5. In the case at hand baba (tantric baba) was a well-known person who has a
command over “tantrik vidya”. With reference to facts “He was quite popular and had a
huge following, including politicians, businessmen, industrialists and many bureaucrats
due to his involvement in multiple social and religious activities in the State and
particularly in the City of Jashmer”. As it is evidential from the facts that baba’s follower
use to have a belief over them for whatsoever purpose it be i.e. for religious or for spiritual
purpose. Hence it is required in the interest of the public that this petition should be
maintained as he is related to the sentiments of the followers.

1.2 It is contended that the matter involves substantial question of law and hence entitled to be
maintainable. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in Act
particularly. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial
pronouncements. A Constitution Bench6 of this Court, while explaining the import of the
said expression, observed that:
The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is
substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance
or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so
whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by
this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from
difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views7.
It is submitted that, the present facts in issue satisfy all of the above mentioned criteria.
The case involves the matter of general public importance and it directly and substantially
affects the rights of the parties as the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of
party involved and public at large. Since baba is in mental situation and cant file an appeal
due to their illness, for the interest of the party this SLP should be maintained. In the event
the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant

4
C.C.E v Standard Motor Products (1989) AIR 1298 (SC), see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th
edn. Vol 2 2010).
5
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC).
6
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1962) AIR 1314(SC).
7
Id.
 admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has
been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the
evidence, or when the evidence has been misread.8 The decision of the H.C is basically
based on circumstantial evidence since there was no direct evidence to prove the same.
[ARGUENDO] Even if we assume that the case doesn’t involves substantial question of
law, SC in the exercise of its power conferred under article 136 can entertain the present
appeal. Even on the question of fact, wrong question leads to a wrong answer. In such
cases, even errors of fact can be the subject matter of judicial review under Art. 136.9 It is
open to the SC to interfere with the findings of the fact given by the HC, if the HC has
acted perversely or otherwise improperly.10 Article 136 uses the wording ‘in any cause or
matter’. This gives widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter.11 The
constitution of India Vest “Discretionary power” in the supreme court of India12.
2 The council humbly submits that NGO has the locus standi to impugn the judgement of the
High Court. It will be a grave injustice to him (baba) and to the ideology for which he
stands as penalizing him for the crime of murder without any proper evidence will regard
as an injustice to the client.13 The law with respect to locus standi has considerably
advanced.14 Whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of
the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law any member of
the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal
of such wrong or public injury.15 It can be two folded.
2.1 Firstly the petitioners have a bona fide interest and hence they have a locus standi :-
“Locus standi” is the right of a party to appear and be heard on the question before any
tribunal. It means the legal capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. In S.P Gupta
v. UOI the court observed that, “any member of the public having sufficient interest can
maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty

8
MadanLal v Mst. Gopi and Anr (1980) 4 SCC 255(SC).+659
9
Cholan Roadways Ltd. v G. Thirugnanasambandam (2005) AIR 570 (SC).
10
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211(SC).
11
Pritam Singh v The State (1950) AIR 169 (SC).
12
Special Leave petition In Indian Judicial System, Law senate, (Mar. 08, 2018, 05:13 P.M)
http://www.lawsenate.com/publications/articles/special-leave-petition-slp.pdf
13
Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab (1983) 1 SCR 145.
14
M/s. J. Mohapatra& Co. v. Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572, 1574 : (1984) 4 SCC 108
15
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1981 Supp SCC 87
 or from violation of some provisions of the constitution or the law and seek enforcement
of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision”.
If the court finds the question raised to be of substantial public interest, the issue of locus
standi of the person placing the relevant facts and materials before the court becomes
irrelevant. 16
2.2 The concept of locus standi has been liberalized :-
Justice delivery system has acquired a big significance in modern legal jurisprudence
practice.17 The Supreme Court of the United States18 has stated: “In essence the question
of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court to decide the merits of the
dispute or of particular issues”. The concept of “locus standi” is being liberalized and the
scope of the concept is being expanded day to day. 19 The rules of locus standi have been
relaxed and a person having sufficient interest in the proceeding will have a locus standi
and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine
infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political
motive or any oblique consideration.20 The general proposition of the law is that the interest
of an individual in the vindication of a public right would be sufficient to give him locus
standi provided that he is prejudiced by the injury to the public interest more than the other
members of the public are prejudiced thereby.21
It is also true that in the criminal jurisdiction this strictness applies a fortiori since an
adverse verdict from this Court may result in irretrievable injury to life or liberty.22
Even the English System, as pointed by the Discussion paper, permits a private citizen to
file an indictment. In our view, the narrow limits set, in vintage English law, into the
concept of 'person aggrieved' and 'standing' needs liberalization in our democratic
situation.23 The American Supreme Court relaxed the restrictive attitude towards 'standing'
in the famous case of Baker v. Carr.24

16
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. UOI, 2006 WP(C) No. 202 of 1995.
17
Janata Dal v. H. S. Chaudhury, (1992) 4 SCC 305.
18
R v. Liverpool Corporation Exparte Liverpole Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association, 2 QB 299 (1972).
19
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Kantha Chandra and Ors. (1989) AIR Kant. 1.
20
21
M.P. Jain and S.N., Jain Principles of Administrative Law, p. 402 (Nagpur: LexisNexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 3rd edn. 1979),
22
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr.
23
Dabholkar's American case find it
24
Find American citatiokn
 Lord Denning,25 spoke:-
“The words 'person aggrieved' are of wide import and should not be subjected to
a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busybody who
is interfering in things which do not concern him;”
Hence, considering all the above authorities, it is humbly submitted before this court that
the matter involves question of law of general public importance and NGO has “locus
standi” therefore, the appeal is maintainable under article 136 of the constitution of India.

25
Attorney-General of the Gambia v. Pierra Sarr N' Jie, check citation sayad america