Question

The petitioner, a professor of political science who had done substantial research and deeply interested in ensuring proper implementation of the constitutional provisions, challenged the practice followed by the state of Bihar in promulgating a number of ordinances without getting the approval of the legislature. The court held that the petitioner as a member of the public has 'sufficient interest' to maintain a petition under Article 32 – This relates to the case of:

• A. Parmanand Katara Vs Union of India - AIR 1989, SC 2039
• B. D.C.Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579
• C. Neeraja Choudhari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1984SC1099
• D. Chameli Singh Vs State of U.P. AIR 1996,SC1051

Hint:

A person with sufficient interest in public welfare can file a PIL under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the case.
In D.C.Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that a member of the public can file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India if they have sufficient interest in the matter. The case involved the challenge to the state of Bihar's practice of promulgating ordinances without legislative approval.
Step 2: Explanation of the options.
- (a) Parmanand Katara Vs Union of India: This case is related to the right to life and medical care, not related to Article 32 petitions.
- (b) D.C.Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar: This is the correct case where the court allowed a public member to challenge the unlawful practice of ordinances by the state of Bihar.
- (c) Neeraja Choudhari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh: This case does not pertain to the issue of public interest litigation under Article 32.
- (d) Chameli Singh Vs State of U.P.: This case dealt with the right to shelter, but not with the issue of public interest petitions.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Therefore, the correct answer is (b) D.C.Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579.