The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a whistleblower or complainant cannot step into an employer-employee dispute before a court, despite exposing alleged irregularities. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar made it clear that only a person directly and substantially aggrieved could invoke writ jurisdiction, while holding that service disputes were “personal and individual in character” and could not be converted into platforms for third-party intervention.
“A third party, including a complainant or whistleblower, has no locus standi to canvass the correctness of service actions. Such a person may at best lead evidence as a witness, but cannot assume the status of an adversarial litigant,” Justice Brar ruled.
At the outset, Justice Brar examined the threshold issue of locus standi. “It is imperative to examine the threshold issue of locus standi, particularly in the context of service jurisprudence, where the contours of maintainability are well-defined and narrowly circumscribed,” the court observed.
Justice Brar made it clear that the law “consistently mandates that service disputes are essentially personal and individual in character, and, therefore, only a person directly and substantially aggrieved by the impugned action is entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution”. The bench cautioned that “any dilution of this settled principle would not only distort the framework of service law but also open the...
For three decades, I’ve worked with families navigating some of the most painful and complex life experiences imaginable. As executive director of Time To Put Kids First, I hear from parents acros...