The Oil and Gas Sector in India: Balancing Business Policies and Public Interest by the Supreme Court of India

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
M P Ram Mohan ◽  
Shashi Kant Yadav

Indian authorities have formulated and implemented several policies for exploration, production, refining, transportation, and distribution of its Oil & Gas (O&G) resources. With respect to governance of O&G industry, though, the Indian Constitution envisions larger role of Central government, however, the legislative power, over O&G resources, has been in contention between Centre and States over the past seven decades. Moreover, the legislative power of the central government over O&G resources is subject to ‘public interest’ ensuring that the resources are regulated for common good. The interaction between business policies and public interest, and law-making power between Centre and States have been subject to the Supreme Court's (Court's) review covering the constitutional aspects of O&G sector. These constitutional decisions determined the energy progression in India, especially understanding the ‘shape and form’ of energy justice in India. The paper analyses the role of the Supreme Court of India in balancing public interest and business policies through mapping of all the constitutional cases and also important administrative matters, consecutively laying down the foundation of distributive energy justice in India.

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 390-408
Author(s):  
Siddharth Peter de Souza ◽  
Aayush Agarwala

Recent instances of improper exercise of discretion by governors of Indian states have once again underscored the need for a critical appraisal of the manner in which such governors are appointed and removed under the Indian Constitution. The gulf between what the role of a governor was envisaged to be by the Constituent Assembly and what has actually played out in reality is a matter of grave concern. It would not be wise for us to expect the legislature to provide any solution to this problem, since the prevailing scenario plays to the advantage of whichever party holds the reins at the Centre. The judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the B. P. Singhal case made some important interventions as far as this vexed issue is concerned. However, the much-needed panacea to the ills of the process of appointment and removal of governors is still eagerly awaited. In this article, we recommend that the Supreme Court of India adopts a more contextualised approach to solving this intractable problem and considers adopting the ‘nudge theory’ to provide a framework to encourage important actors in this context to take more responsible and fair decisions in order to protect and preserve the democratic structures.


2010 ◽  
pp. 85-89
Author(s):  
Manas Ranjan Samantaray ◽  
Mritunjay Sharma

Public interest litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system in that it could achieve those objectives which could hardly be achieved through conventional private litigation.PIL, for instance, offers a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, provides an avenue to enforce diffused or collective rights, and enables civil society to not only spread awareness about human rights but also allows them to participate in government decision making. PIL could also contribute to good governance by keeping the government accountable. This article will show, with reference to the Indian experience, that PIL could achieve these important objectives. However, the Indian PIL experience also shows us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a facade to fulfil private interests, settle political scores or gain easy publicity. Judiciary in a democracy should also not use PIL as a device to run the country on a day-today basis or enter the legitimate domain of the executive and legislature. The challenge for states, therefore, is to strike a balance in allowing legitimate PIL cases and discouraging frivolous ones. One way to achieve this balance could be to build in economic (dis)incentives in PIL and also confine it primarily to those cases where access to justice is undermined by some kind of disability. Judiciary, being the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to play in the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights one has to move the Supreme Court or the High Court’s directly by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure involved in litigation, however, makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in respect of millions of destitute and underprivileged masses stricken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. The Supreme Court of India pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) thereby throwing upon the portals of courts to the common man. Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of private vested interests. Litigation in those days consisted mainly of some action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing their own grievances/problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured person or the aggrieved party. However, these entire scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the concept of public interest litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in the country and the newly formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access to the law and introduced in their work a broad public interest perspective.


Author(s):  
Shomona Khanna

Started in 1997, Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA) is a national movement for eradicating the practice of manual scavenging—an occupation which involves cleaning of dry latrines with tin plates and brooms and carrying of human excreta by members of lower castes. The SKA has been leading the public campaign to destroy illegal dry latrines and for the proper implementation of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. In 2003, SKA, with 18 other organizations, filed a public interest litigation petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking eradication of manual scavenging, liberation of all manual scavengers from their degrading jobs, and initiation of measures for their rehabilitation. The SKA also works for the dignity and better working conditions for sanitation workers such as sewage workers, pit workers, and sweepers. This chapter seeks to record the work of SKA including its influence on the law and policymaking process.


2020 ◽  
pp. 81-149
Author(s):  
Joshua N. Aston

The chapter deals with the legal framework in India against torture and custodial violence and the response and role of the Indian police force in such crimes. It also gives statistical data on violence taking place in the country at the hands of the police and armed forces. It provides a summary of the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on arbitrary and extra-judicial executions. The chapter also discusses the right to protection against torture and the views and verdicts of the Supreme Court of India, and highlights the role of statutory bodies and commissions such as the Law Commission of India and the National Police Commission in preventing torture and custodial violence. Therefore, this chapter has reference to several laws of the country and the Constitution of India and its provisions, and it cites some cases and Supreme Court rulings for preventing torture and custodial violence, which provides India’s response towards the prevention of torture and custodial violence and protecting victims as well as every citizen from such crimes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-223
Author(s):  
Subrata Biswas

What do the different State organs do when they face a crisis? Do the suffering institutions successfully re-invent themselves or is it that some other institution uses the crisis to find an ‘opportunity’ to re-invent itself? Can one’s crisis be another’s opportunity? This case-study analyses how the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter SCI) reinvented itself in a bid to further the cause of good governance in the country ever since emergency had been clamped on the nation towards the end of 1970s. Surely there has been a crisis of governance in India, caused by the pathetic performance of both the legislature and the executive. It has led to myriad problems in both social and political arenas. If left unaddressed, Indian people might have turned more violent than they already are and that could have perpetrated a failure of democracy in the country. But the SCI has successfully played a positive role in this regard. If the other institutions have failed the people, the Supreme Court has championed their cause. The world’s largest democracy stands saved until now. But is it wholly the judges’ heartfelt concern for the people that has prompted the Supreme Court to function in this fashion? Did anything go wrong during the emergency? Why is it that it has been more and more active ever since the emergency ended? And why is it that there has been an exponential growth in public interest litigations (hereinafter PILs) in the Supreme Court even though it cannot handle so many cases because of infrastructural paucities? Situating itself in the specific context of PILs entertained by the SCI and supporting it with the theoretical inputs of the so-called ‘principal-agent framework’, this essay argues that there has been a competition (i.e., between the court and the elected politicians) for ‘occupying’ more space in the domain of governance since the inception of the Constitution and it is only the Supreme Court that got the right ‘opportunity’ to achieve its objective in the wake of crisis in governance that became so visible in Indian politics ever since the fag-end of the 1970s. While the court tried other instruments earlier in its game plan vis-a-vis the elected politicians, the crisis situation since the end of the 1970s made it ‘invent’ a new tool in the form of PILs capable of safeguarding the interests of the people and insulating them against the mindless functioning of multiple state agencies. But how far can the SCI (hereinafter SCI) proceed with this new tool? Is there a risk of ‘overusing’ it? Does the court not have its own limitations in this regard, too? What should the Supreme Court do in order to avert a fresh ‘crisis’?


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-111
Author(s):  
Regina Menachery Paulose

This article explores the ongoing crisis of statelessness that has been created because of a petition made by the people of Assam, India to update the electoral rolls in the state. As a result of the process, which has been approved by the Supreme Court of India, an estimated 4 million people have become stateless. The government has stated that these 4 million people risk deportation back to Bangladesh. This article will briefly examine the history of the situation that has unfolded in Assam; discuss the role of statelessness and how it may lead to genocide, underscoring the importance to act and find robust solutions. Finally, the author will conclude by discussing potential actions that India should take in order to resolve future cases of statelessness, specifically examining the Global Compact on Refugees and other instruments provided for within international refugee law. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document