Tag: #SupremeCourtjudgement

INTRODUCTION

Any claim made in the suit flows from the cause of action, and claims made must be with respect to the cause of action from which they derive. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr., the Supreme Court stated that “Cause of Action” refers to the conditions that constitute a violation of a right or an urgent cause for a reaction in a limited sense. Due to the facts or circumstances, several causes of action may arise in some situations. Contractual actions, statutory causes of action, and torts including assault, battery, invasion of privacy, and defamation are only a few examples.

CAUSE OF ACTION, SECTION 20, CPC

“Cause of Action” as defined by section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, is any fact that must be proven in support of the right to obtain a judgment. The term Cause of Action is mentioned in the CPC in various places. Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order II Rule 2, it is stated that a plaint must mention the cause of action if it is to be instituted as a suit. Order VII Rule 1 reaffirms the same. Further, Order I Rule 8 states in the explanation that the parties represented in the litigation do not have to have the same cause of action as the person representing them and Order II Rule 7 explains in detail whether an objection to misjoinder of the cause of action should be submitted before the matter appears in the suit if such a complaint is valued at that time.

As stated at the outset, a Cause of Action is not only an important part of a Civil Action, but it is also the cause for the civil suit’s existence. It establishes the disputed topic or the genuine nature of the parties’ relationship. If there is no cause of action, there will be no litigation. Although, inside the CPC, the cause of action has yet to be defined.

PURPOSE OF ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC provides litigants with the option of seeking an independent and special remedy, allowing courts to dismiss a suit at the preliminary stage without recording evidence and proceeding to trial based on the evidence presented if they are satisfied that the action should be dismissed on any of the grounds outlined in this provision.

In the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali¹, the SC reviewed several precedents on the underlying goal of O7 R 11 while dealing with the appeal before it. The court would not allow protraction of the proceedings if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint or if the suit is precluded by limitation. In this instance, it would be important to put an end to the phony litigation to avoid wasting more judicial time. It opined, citing Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi², that the main aim of conferring such powers under O7 R 11 is to ensure that useless and bound to prove futile litigation should not be allowed to consume the time of the courts and exercise the mind of the respondent.

The Supreme Court went on to say that while considering a motion to dismiss a plaint, courts should look at the plaint’s averments in light of the documents relied on to determine if they reveal a cause of action. In this regard, it was also stated that courts would have to disregard the defendant’s pleadings in the written statement and application for dismissal of the plaint on merit when making such a conclusion. As a result, the Supreme Court stated that when deciding any application submitted under O 7 R11, the courts should limit themselves to the plaint and not delve into the specific facts outlined in the written statement or even the O7 R 11 application.

CASE LAWS

Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Srikant Gupta and Ors.³
In this case, an agreement was composed in Bhilai for the dissolution of the partnership and distribution of partnership assets. The Supreme Court held that the agreement was void and had to be ignored at the threshold to save the time of the court and to safeguard the parties from any harm. Further, it held that Chandigarh Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit as part of the cause of action that arose at Mandsaur.

Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai and Ors.⁴
According to the Supreme Court, the cause of action encompasses those circumstances that, if present, would enable the plaintiff to provide support for his entitlement to a court judgment. That is, a set of facts that the plaintiff will use to substantiate his or her case.

M/S South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. vs M/S Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt.⁵
The Supreme Court ruled that a cause of action is made up of a group of circumstances that constitute grounds for bringing a civil action for redress in a court of law. In other words, it’s a series of circumstances that gives the plaintiff the right to sue the defendant under the legislation that applies to them. The court further stated that a cause of action must include any conduct committed by the defendant because, without one, no cause of action will likely develop.

Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh⁶
In this case, the cause of action arose when the injured party disputed the gift deed after approximately 22 years from the date of the equivalent’s execution. The offended party in the situation has contested the gift deed, claiming that it is a garish one that is therefore not authoritative. After hearing both sides’ perspectives on the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the Statute of Limitations indisputably bars this lawsuit. Furthermore, the plaint should be dismissed according to CPC Order VII Rule 11.

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association vs Union of India & Ors.⁷
In this case, the court held that every fact that must be proved, as opposed to any piece of evidence needed to prove each fact, must have been mentioned the essential element of ’cause of action’ according to the Rajasthan High Court. In each circumstance, the location of the cause of action must be determined.

As a result, the court will only be justified in dismissing the plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action if it considers the claims in the plaint and decides that they do not reveal any cause of action, assuming the allegations are true. However, if the court finds that there is no cause of action for the suit after reviewing all evidence and materials after the trial, the suit is dismissed rather than the plaint rejected.

OBSERVATIONS

The plaintiff’s lawsuit may be dismissed at the outset if the cause of action is not adequately established just like in the recent case. In such a case, no court proceedings will be continued in the first place to save the time of the court and to prevent such malice. Further, the claims must be backed up by facts, law, and a conclusion drawn from the law’s application to the facts.

A statement of facts in a battery case, for example, might be “While walking through XYZ Store, the plaintiff was tackled by the defendant, a store security guard, who knocked him to the ground and held him there by kneeling on her back and holding his arms behind him, while screaming in his ear to open his bag. The plaintiff suffered injuries to her head, chest, shoulders, neck, and back as a result of these actions.”

However, the facts or circumstances that lead to a person seeking judicial redress may give rise to multiple causes of action. In the previous case, the plaintiff could allege assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Civil Rights.

CONCLUSION

As for this regulation, the term “cause of action” refers to the key facts that make up the right and its infringement, which authorizes a person to sue the wrongdoer, defaulter, or anyone else who is liable for it.

However, Rule 6 of Order II of CPC states that the court may order separate trials if it appears to the court that joining causes of action in one complaint will embarrass or delay the trial or be otherwise inconvenient. It can be analyzed from the above-stated matter that a lawsuit can be dismissed if the cause of action is missing from the complaint. It is not enough to just assert that specific events or facts occurred that entitle the plaintiff to relief; the complaint must also include all of the elements of each cause of action in detail. However, if an offended party excludes any relief to which he is entitled to suit except when approved by the Court, he will not be granted such assistance later. The Court may award aid on reasons other than those specified in the plaint in exceptional situations. The aid requested by the injured party or the defendant might be broad or narrow.

Citations:

1. 2020 SCCOnline SC 562
2. 1986 AIR 1253, 1986 SCR (2) 782
3. (1993) 104 PLR 621
4. 1994 SCC (6) 322, JT 1994 (6) 89
5. 1996 SCC (3) 443, JT 1996 (3) 656
6. AIR 2019 SC 1430
7. AIR 2001 SC 416

Written by Hemant Bohra student at School of Law, Lovely Professional University, Punjab.

Equivalent Citation

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Bench

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, R. K. Agrawal, J. S. Khehar, S. A. Bobde, S. A. Nazeer, R. K. Agrawal, J. Chelameswar, A.M. Sapre JJ

Decided on

24th  August 2017

Relevant Act/ Section

Article 19,19(1)(a), 21 and 25

Brief Facts and Procedural History

The Government of India has launched a scheme called “Unique Identification for BPL Families.” For the initiative, a committee was also formed. The Committee suggested that a ‘Unique Identification Database’ be created for the project. The project will be divided into three phases, according to the decision. The Planning Commission of India then issued a notification on UIDAI in January 2009. (Unique Identification Authority of India). In the year 2010, the Planning Commission also approved the National Identification Authority of India Bill. The current case was filed by retired High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy, who is 91 years old, is against the Union of India, or the Government of India. The case was heard by a nine-judge Supreme Court bench that had been created specifically for the Constitution Bench. Following conflicting judgments from other Supreme Court benches, the special bench was constituted to assess whether the “right to privacy” was guaranteed as an independent basic right.

The case emphasized various concerns about the government’s Aadhaar program (a form of uniform biometrics-based identity card). In the near future, the government suggested that the above-mentioned plan become required for access to government services and benefits. Initially, the challenge was brought before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, claiming that the scheme invaded the “right to privacy” provided to Indian people by the Constitution. On account of the Union of India, the Attorney General disputed that the Indian Constitution does not give particular protections for the right to privacy. He based this on observations made at various times in the cases of M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (an eight-judge bench) and Kharak Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh (an eight-judge bench) (a five-judge bench). Following that, an eleven-judge panel determined that basic rights should not be regarded as separate, unrelated rights, upholding the dissenting opinion in the Kharak Singh case. This also acted as a precedent of following rulings by smaller benches of the Supreme Court which expressly recognized the right to privacy. Moreover, it was in this circumstance that a Constitution Bench was established, which found that a nine-judge bench should be established to assess whether the Constitution contained a fundamental right to privacy or not.

Finally, on August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, declaring the right to privacy a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Issues before the Court

• Whether the ‘right to privacy’ is a basic part of the right to life and personal liberty provided under Article 21 and also a part of the freedoms provided by Part III of the Constitution,
• And whether the judgment was taken in M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi was right in the face of law?
• And was the decision taken in Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh correct in a legal sense?

The decision of the Court

On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India issued a major decision upholding the basic right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of India’s constitution. The Supreme Court’s historic nine-judge bench unanimously agreed that Article 21 of the Constitution secured the right to privacy as an essential aspect of the right to life and personal liberty. Privacy is a distinct and independent basic right granted by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which relied on six separate judgments. The decision’s most crucial element conveyed a broad interpretation of the right to privacy. It was clarified that the right to privacy is a broad right that covers the body and mind, including judgments, choices, information, and freedom, rather than narrow protection against physical derivation or an invasion right under Article 21. Privacy was found to be a predominant, enforceable, and multifaceted right under Part III of the Constitution. Overall, the Court overturned the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh because the latter found that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, and the Court found that the judgment in M.P. Sharma was legitimate because the Indian Constitution did not contain any limitations to the laws on search and seizure comparable to the Fourth Amendment in the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment was not a comprehensive concept of security and that the absence of a comparable assurance in the Constitution didn’t imply that India lacked a distinctive right to protection by any stretch of the imagination– and thus, the decision in M.P. Sharma was overturned. Kharak Singh’s biased perspective on close-to-home freedom was also invalidated by the Supreme Court. This viewpoint was referred to as the “storehouse” approach obtained from A.K. Gopalan by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The Court stated that after Maneka Gandhi, this method of seeing fundamental rights in watertight containers was abandoned.

The Court stated that after Maneka Gandhi, this method of seeing fundamental rights in watertight containers was abandoned. The Court also pointed out that the majority conclusion in Kharak Singh was internally inconsistent, as there was no legal basis for striking down domiciliary visits and police monitoring on any grounds other than privacy – a right they referred to in theory yet ruled to be unconstitutional. The Court further stated that subsequent cases maintaining the right to privacy after Kharak Singh should be viewed in light of the principles set forth in the opinion. The court also considered whether the right to life, the right to personal liberty, and the right to liberty established in Part III of the Constitution protects the right to privacy in affirmative instances. The court decided that privacy “is not an exclusive concept.” It dismissed the Attorney General’s position that the right to privacy should be ceded in exchange for the state’s welfare rights. Overall, while ruling that the right to privacy is not self-contained, the decision also outlined a legal survey standard that should be applied when the state intrudes on a person’s privacy.

It was decided that the right to privacy could be limited where an intrusion met the three-fold requirement of legality, which assumes the existence of law; need, which is defined in terms of a reliable state point; and proportionality, which ensures a reasonable relationship between the objects and the methods used to achieve them. The fourth point of this criteria was added by Justice S.K Kaul, who demanded “procedural assurances against maltreatment of such obstacles. Chelameswar, on the other hand, feels that the “overriding national interest” threshold should be applied only to privacy claims that demand “close inspection.”

The court found that the fair, just, and reasonable criteria of Article 21 should be applied to additional privacy issues and that whether or not to apply the “national priority” standard depends on the facts. The court also stressed the importance of sexual orientation in terms of privacy. It also examined the negative and positive aspects of the right to privacy, namely, that the state is not only prohibited from interfering with this right but is also required to take reasonable steps to protect personal privacy. Information privacy is part of the right to privacy, according to the ruling. Despite the fact that the court recognized the need for a data protection law, it left the burden of enacting legislation to Parliament.

References

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired). vs Union of India and Ors., 2017. | LawFoyer

Written by Vidushi Joshi student at UPES, Dehradun.