Continuing mandamus

Last updated

Continuing mandamus, structural interdict, or structural injunction is a relief given by a court of law through a series of ongoing orders over a long period of time, directing an authority to do its duty or fulfill an obligation in general public interest, as and when a need arises over the duration a case lies with the court, with the court choosing not to dispose the case off in finality. This happens in a situation which cannot be remedied instantaneously but requires a solution over a long time, at times going on for years. With this procedural innovation of the writ of mandamus or a mandatory order, the court monitors compliance of its orders, seeking periodic reports from authorities on the progress in implementing them. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

It may enlist senior advocates to assist it as amicus curiae in court, or as court commissioners in the field, and subject experts or expert bodies to report back to it on the facts and ground-realities of the case. It may appoint a court committee or a court commission, independent from the executive, as its oversight or monitoring agency. It may require the subject-matter covered by the case, be taught in schools and universities, making it part of textbooks and syllabi, or be given wide publicity through the media. [4] It may use contempt against people in positions of power or authority as a remedy in case of non-compliance or poor implementation of its orders. [5] It may recommend that the legislature frame a policy in the matter, for the future.

India

The doctrine of continuing mandamus, first propounded in a case in the late 1970s, has been discussed and dealt with in the respective cases of Vineet Narain v. Union of India [6] and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. [7] It has been applied to cleaning the air around the Taj Mahal and the waters of the Ganga, and to mitigate travel conditions in commuter trains and road surface, traffic & vehicle conditions, in cities. As it essentially seeks to directly control the bureaucracy, bypassing the political regime, it has met with both, gradual success and stiff resistance, in India. [8]

If a case, prima facie, cannot be made out against an accused in a charge sheet, it is to be closed and quickly submitted to the court. The courts are not concerned with the accusations on merit, in such cases, but merely whether the agencies have investigated them expeditiously, and to their logical conclusion.

Philippines

The Manila Bay Case led to the formal placement of the procedural innovation of continuing mandamus in statute books in the Philippines, where it is being resorted to by litigants in other cases.

South Africa

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in 2002, recognised the need for structural interdicts in their supervisory jurisdiction, where declaratory orders go unheeded. This need should be coupled with a meaningful engagement of all the parties to the litigation in securing socio-economic rights.

Canada

Courts would give time to authorities for compliance, by suspending or delaying declarations of invalidity. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada in Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) held that, in constitutional cases a court could keep the final outcome in a case pending in a post-judgment supervisory jurisdiction, and would not become functus officio.

United States

Structural injunction, formulated possibly first by American courts, has been applied to try remedy schools, prisons, environmental cleanup and traditional rights of indigenous people. [9]

Notes

  1. ↑ Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, (CJI). "The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Protection" (PDF). D.P. Shrivastava Memorial Lecture - High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur – March 20, 2010. p. 3.
  2. ↑ Secretariat of the Sub-committee of Rules, Supreme Court, Manila, Republic of the Philippines (2010). "Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)" (PDF). Philippine Judicial Academy, p.103, 140.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ↑ Dizon, David (7 Sep 2009). "RP's Erin Brokovich: One lawsuit at a time". ABS - CBN News.
  4. ↑ May, James R.; Daly, Erin (2014-11-17). Global Environmental Constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press (pg. 158, 161, 167, 204). ISBN   9781107022256.
  5. ↑ Parmar, Sharanjeet; Wahi, Namita (2011-09-12). "Ch. 7. India | Citizens, Courts and the Right to Health: Between Promise and Progress". In Yamin, Alicia Ely (ed.). Litigating Health Rights: Can Courts Bring More Justice to Health?. Harvard University Press. ISBN   9780986106200.
  6. ↑ Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 3386
  7. ↑ Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
  8. ↑ Mate, Manoj, S. (Fall 2010). "The Variable Power of Courts: The Expansion of the Power of the Supreme Court of India in Fundamental Rights and Governance Decisions" (PDF). University of California, Berkeley ( pg. 137, 152, 182).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ↑ Sturm, Susan P. (1990–91). "A Normative Theory of Public Law Remedies" (PDF). Georgetown Law Journal. 79: 1355–1446.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Injunction</span> Legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

"Prerogative writ" is a historic term for a writ that directs the behavior of another arm of government, such as an agency, official, or other court. It was originally available only to the Crown under English law, and reflected the discretionary prerogative and extraordinary power of the monarch. The term may be considered antiquated, and the traditional six comprising writs are often called the extraordinary writs and described as extraordinary remedies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Philippines</span> Highest court in the Philippines

The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.

Nuisance is a common law tort. It means something which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir James Fitzjames Stephen as,

"an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

An unfair labor practice (ULP) in United States labor law refers to certain actions taken by employers or unions that violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 and other legislation. Such acts are investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Vineet Narain is an Indian journalist, anti-corruption activist and conservator of heritage. His exposure of the 1990s Jain Hawala scandal led him to use a public interest petition to apply pressure on the Central Bureau of Investigation. The CBI was widely criticised when its prosecutions collapsed, and the Supreme Court of India in deciding the Vineet Narain Case made directions that included new supervision of the CBI by the Central Vigilance Commission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bandhua Mukti Morcha</span> A non-governmental organisation in India

Bandhua Mukti Morcha (BMM) (Hindi: बंधुआ मुक्ति मोर्चा, or Bonded Labour Liberation Front is a non-governmental organisation in India working to end bonded labour. Based in New Delhi, it was founded in 1981 by Swami Agnivesh who continued as its chairman until his death in 2020.

The Hawala scandal, also called the Jain Diaries case or the hawala scam, was an Indian political and financial scandal involving payments allegedly sent by politicians through four hawala brokers, namely the Jain brothers. It was a US$18 million bribery scandal that implicated some of the country's leading politicians.

Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body. A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an injunction upon the public body.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Binayak Sen</span>

Binayak Sen is a paediatrician, and public health specialist. He is the national Vice-President of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). He is the recipient of several awards including the Jonathan Mann Award, the Gwangju Prize for Human Rights, and the Gandhi International Peace Award. He has been convicted of sedition by a local Court in India which was later upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. He was subsequently granted bail by the Supreme Court of India on appeal. He is a member of the policy group for Police Reforms of Aam Aadmi Party.

A peremptory writ of mandamus is an absolute and unqualified writ to the defendant to do the act in question. It is issued when the defendant defaults on, or fails to show sufficient cause in answer to, an alternative mandamus. It is one of the three types of a mandamus.

In the Philippines, amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs to supplement the inefficacy of the writ of habeas corpus. Amparo means 'protection,' while habeas data is 'access to information.' Both writs were conceived to solve the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ashok Desai</span> Indian lawyer (1932–2020)

Ashok H. Desai was an Indian lawyer, practising in the Supreme Court of India. He held office as the Attorney General of India from 9 July 1996 to 6 May 1998. Earlier, he was the Solicitor General of India from 18 December 1989 to 2 December 1990. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan award and the Law Luminary Award in 2001. He was given an honorary doctorate in "recognition of his contribution to the field of law and jurisprudence" by the North Orissa University in September 2009.

In most legal systems of the Spanish-speaking world, the writ of amparo is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. The amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore administrative law</span> Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African environmental law, heard in the Natal Provincial Division by Hurt J on March 29, 1995, with judgment handed down on December 15, 1995. Counsel for the applicant was CJ Hartzenberg SC ; DA Gordon SC appeared for the respondents. The applicant's attorney was the State Attorney; the respondents' attorneys were Venn, Nemeth & Hart.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ouster clause</span>

An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.

<i>Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v KAA</i>

Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa [2021] KESC 34 (KLR) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Kenya that dealt with the issue of forced evictions and the right to housing. The case arose from the eviction of over 3,000 families from Mitumba Village, a settlement located near Wilson Airport in Nairobi. The Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) owned the land on which Mitumba Village was located, but the residents had been living there for over 19 years. In 2011, the people of Mitumba village were evicted from their homes. The eviction was carried out by the Kenya Airports Authority, despite the fact that Mitu-Bell society on behalf of the residents had obtained conservatory orders from the High Court to prevent it. The matter was then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the society had not exhausted all of their administrative remedies. The society then appealed to the Supreme Court.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.