YUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR AND ORS. versus MANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS.

YUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR AND ORS. versus MANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS.

The Court held that it was not necessary to continue with the writ petition and to consider the allegations against the previous government, given the changed political situation, the actions taken by the new government, and lack of allegations of inaction by the new government.

Parties
Petitioner: Yusuf Khan @ Dilip Kumar; Respondent: Manohar Joshi; Advocate: Soli J. Sorabjee; Advocate: R.N. Trivedi; Advocate: Altaf Ahmad; Advocate: Harish N. Salve; Advocate: Ms. Indira Jaising; Advocate: V.A. Mohta; Advocate: Krishan Kr. Mahajan; Advocate: Ms. Musharraf Chaudhry; Advocate: P.H. Parekh; Advocate: Mrs. V.D. Khanna; Advocate: Gopal Balwant Sathe; Advocate: Kailash Vasdev; Advocate: Ashok Bhan; Advocate: Arvind Kumar Sharma; Advocate: Rajiv Nanda; Advocate: Sushma Suri; Advocate: A.M. Khanwilkar; Advocate: Sameer Parekh; Advocate: Kuldip Singh; Advocate: Rahul Ray; Advocate: D.M. Nargolkar; Advocate: Ms. Vijay Laxmi Menon
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 673 of 1998 / Disposition
Outcome
Petition disposed of.
Legal Topics
Article 32, State Responsibility, Security Arrangements, Investigation of Violence, Cinematograph Act
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Article 32 State Responsibility Security Arrangements Investigation of Violence Cinematograph Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yusuf Khan @ Dilip Kumar

Petitioner

Manohar Joshi

Respondent

Soli J. Sorabjee

Advocate

R.N. Trivedi

Advocate

Altaf Ahmad

Advocate

Harish N. Salve

Advocate

Ms. Indira Jaising

Advocate

V.A. Mohta

Advocate

Krishan Kr. Mahajan

Advocate

Ms. Musharraf Chaudhry

Advocate

P.H. Parekh

Advocate

Mrs. V.D. Khanna

Advocate

Gopal Balwant Sathe

Advocate

Kailash Vasdev

Advocate

Ashok Bhan

Advocate

Arvind Kumar Sharma

Advocate

Rajiv Nanda

Advocate

Sushma Suri

Advocate

A.M. Khanwilkar

Advocate

Sameer Parekh

Advocate

Kuldip Singh

Advocate

Rahul Ray

Advocate

D.M. Nargolkar

Advocate

Ms. Vijay Laxmi Menon

Advocate

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 673 of 1998 / Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Government was responsible for violent protests against the screening of a film.
  2. 2 Whether adequate security arrangements and investigation by an independent agency were warranted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it was not necessary to continue with the writ petition and to consider the allegations against the previous government, given the changed political situation, the actions taken by the new government, and lack of allegations of inaction by the new government.

Court Disposition

Petition disposed of.

Orders

  • Writ petition closed without prejudice to any future motion in respect of the cause of action shown.