Petition challenging the constitutionality of a ban on non-owner rickshaw drivers; Whether the opportunity to own a rickshaw is a protected right; Whether negative bans promoted social justice sufficient under Article 38 of the constitution; Whether judicial engineering promotes social justice better than strict legal interpretation; Whether the state has a duty to provide access to rickshaw ownership; Right to Access Justice; Right to Work; Judicial Engineering.
On the same date the Supreme Court of India decided Azad, the Court extended the engineered scheme to Delhi, in Nanhu & ors vs. Delhi Administration & ors. (See Secondary Literature for the decision.) States across the country are implementing similar programs, including Bhopal, however, a large number of programs are run by NGOs, not the state. In Jharkand, the police department and a local bank decided to create a similar program without legislative prodding. (See Secondary Literature for more information.)
This case was an effort by the courts to devise a proactive policy for ensuring rickshaw pullers in India are not exploited by rickshaw owners. As is done often by the Indian judiciary, the court drew on the principles of equality embodied by the Indian Constitution to give it the mandate to design policy schemes which support human rights. There have been some critics, however, which do not believe this particular scheme in practice, is improving the issue of exploitation of the rickshaw pullers.
For the Petitioner: V.M. Tarkunde, E.C. Agarwala, R.S. Sharma, S.M. Ashri. For the Respondents: O.P. Sharma, R.C. Bhatia (1); Naunit Lal (2)