Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 28th July 2022 at 16:54 IST
The Delhi High Court has noted that the mandamus writ’s scope is against the private authority that may be carrying out a public duty with a restriction on the enforcement of such public obligation and that it is not a remedy against private wrongs.
A Division Bench made up of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Judge Subramaniam Prasad further noted that the court cannot use a writ of mandamus to interfere in the internal operations of a private organization. The Bench observed that:
“It is well settled that a writ of mandamus lies only for the purpose of a public or statutory duty. Writs are issued for the performance of public duties. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority but such private authority must be discharging a public function and the right sought to be enforced must be a public duty.”
The Court subsequently dismissed an appeal that claimed that Agency France Press, a French private international news agency, was subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction since it was a news agency fulfilling a public duty and was established by an act of the French Parliament.
The court held that neither a legislation passed in India had founded Agence France Press, nor had it been given any tasks that might be described as “governmental” or closely related to them, of great public significance, or essential to people’s daily lives.
The present appeal was made in response to the Single judge’s decision to deny Prakash Singh’s claim of racial harassment and discrimination against Agence-France-Presse in his petition. The plea was rejected by the court as being unmaintainable.
The Single-judge Bench had noted that a newspaper or an organisation involved in news transmission could not be seen as serving the public interest.
The Division Bench of the appeals court determined that the complaint against the aforementioned news agency was not related to how it carried out its obligations as a news agency.
Additionally, it was stated that the aforementioned lawsuit against Agence France Press, a foreign corporation, was ineligible for writ jurisdiction since it involved an employer-employee relationship, which is never referred to as performing a public duty.
The Court concluded that, “….Agence France Press is an entity of France and even if the contention of the Petitioner is taken into account that the said news agency has been constituted by the Act of Parliament of France and is engaged in the activity of public function, it still cannot be termed as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”
Further noting that the appeal was a pointless petition that wasted valuable judicial time, it was thus dismissed at a fee of Rs. 50000.