In Brief
The State of U.P. challenged a High Court order on the ground that it had not been given a fair opportunity to file a counter affidavit or argue its case before directions were issued against it. Though impleaded, the State was only treated as a procedural formality. The Supreme Court held that fairness requires any party receiving directions to have substantive opportunity to be heard. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back, directing the State be properly impleaded as an additional respondent with one month to file its counter affidavit and two weeks thereafter for the writ petitioner to file a rejoinder, after which the High Court should dispose the matter on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.