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, having sufficient interest, could maintain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The case involved the issue of the Bihar government re-promulgating ordinances without legislative approval, and the Court accepted the petitioner's standing to challenge this practice. Step 2: Explanation of Other Options.
- (a) Parmanand Katara Vs Union of India concerns medical treatment for the injured, and does not directly relate to standing under Article 32 for public interest. - (c) Neeraja Choudhari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh deals with election law and does not involve standing under Article 32 in the same context. - (d) Chameli Singh Vs State of U.P. is a case dealing with land acquisition and not with the standing of a member of the public under Article 32. Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct case is *D.C. Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar*, where the Court recognized the right of an individual with sufficient interest to approach the Court under Article 32.