#public interest litigation

Bombay High Court ruled that the State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) cannot restrict tiger corridor identification solely to NTCA's 2014 report and DSS, ignoring six statutory parameters under the Wildlife Protection Act. The judgment reinforces statutory compliance in wildlife conservation, impacting tiger habitat protection and administrative law.

Allahabad High Court dismisses a Public Interest Litigation for failing to comply with Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad HC Rules, which mandates a sworn affidavit disclosing the petitioner's credentials, public cause, and absence of personal interest. The ruling reinforces procedural compliance as a prerequisite for PIL maintainability, impacting all future PIL filings in the Lucknow Bench.

Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that sting operations exposing illegal female foeticide do not constitute blackmail under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, granting anticipatory bail to a journalist. The judgment reinforces investigative journalism's protection when acting in public interest, setting a precedent for press freedom under criminal law.

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Tehsildar to decide pending encroachment cases on revenue-recorded pond land within three months, reinforcing that public utility land held in trust cannot be lawfully occupied. This ruling strengthens accountability for local revenue authorities and affirms that encroachments on community water bodies violate the Public Trust Doctrine, affecting thousands of citizens reliant on such lands for ecological and livelihood security.

Bombay High Court dismisses a PIL seeking recovery of excess payments made to retired Class-III/IV employees, reinforcing the Supreme Court's Rafiq Masih judgment that bars recovery from low-income employees for employer errors. The ruling underscores the limited scope of PILs in service matters and protects vulnerable employees from financial hardship due to administrative mistakes.

Allahabad High Court dismisses a PIL for failure to comply with Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad HC Rules, 1952, which mandates a sworn affidavit from the petitioner detailing credentials, public interest, and absence of personal gain. The ruling reinforces strict procedural thresholds for PILs, impacting litigants and practitioners in public interest litigation.

Jharkhand High Court dismisses a PIL on traffic rule enforcement after finding the petitioner lacked bona fides due to prior misuse of judicial process. The ruling underscores that courts may reject PILs where petitioners have a history of frivolous litigation, even if the subject matter concerns public interest.

The Kerala High Court has upheld the Priyadarshini Scheme granting free bus travel to all women and transgender persons, ruling that Article 15(3) permits broad-based affirmative action even without targeted evidence of disadvantage. This sets a precedent for gender-inclusive public welfare policies that prioritize structural empowerment over narrow proof of deprivation, affecting millions of daily commuters across the state.

SAT Mumbai dismisses an appeal by a society lacking direct interest in SEBI's order, reaffirming that only 'aggrieved persons' under Section 15T of the SEBI Act can challenge regulatory decisions. This ruling clarifies locus standi requirements for appeals before SAT, impacting stakeholders seeking judicial review of SEBI orders.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a third-party petitioner lacks locus standi to seek a writ of mandamus for removal of encroachments on temple land under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The court directed authorities to protect the temple properties while dismissing the petition.

Gauhati High Court upholds the application of the Inner Line Permit regime to Dimapur, Chumoukedima, and Niuland under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, affirming its continuity under Article 372. The judgment rejects challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 21, clarifying that the permit system constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) to protect tribal rights and public order.

Allahabad HC reinforces that filing a second PIL on an already adjudicated grievance violates res judicata principles, setting a precedent to curb frivolous litigation. The ruling mandates judicial discretion to dismiss repeat petitions, protecting judicial resources and ensuring finality in land disputes involving public interest.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that once vacant possession of a plot earmarked for rural infrastructure is handed over to the Gram Pradhan, the state cannot delay or evade completion of the work. This establishes a binding legal obligation under PIL, ensuring that land handover is not a procedural formality but a trigger for substantive public service delivery in rural areas.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that once an appeal under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code is dismissed, the Tehsildar has no discretion to delay enforcement of the eviction order. This clarifies that administrative inaction cannot override a final revenue adjudication, reinforcing accountability in land encroachment cases and empowering landowners seeking swift restoration of possession.

The Allahabad High Court held that land recorded as Navin Parti and designated for public residential use during land consolidation does not constitute illegal encroachment when occupied by villagers, including the petitioner. This affirms that administrative earmarking during consolidation overrides revenue record classifications for residential intent, protecting low-income households from punitive action based on technical land categorization.