Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd February,2022
DR. MOHAMMAD AJAZUR RAHMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Payal Bahl, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Central Government
Standing Counsel with Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Rishabv Dubey, Mr. Sahaj Garg and Mr. R.V. Prabhat, Advocates for
UOI.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
1. Present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:
2. We have heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and looked into the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents by way of a Writ of Mandamus for implementation of the “Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2014”. It is contended that the said Act was published in the Gazette of India on 12.05.2014, however, Section 1(3) of the said Act empowers the Union Government to bring the Act in force by a Notification in the Official Gazette, to that effect, which has not been done so far. It is further contended that the Union of India has presented Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015, before the Parliament to amend the Act of 2014, the Bill has expired by the end of session of the 16th Lok Sabha as no efforts were made to pass the Bill.
3. It ought to be kept in mind that enactment of law and/or issuance of Notifications/Rules/Regulations to enforce a Legislation is a Sovereign function and it is not for the Courts to issue directions through a Writ of Mandamus for carrying out the said Sovereign functions.
4. Law is nothing but the desire of the people. Parliament and the State Legislatures represent desire of the people. It is the domain of the Parliament or the State Legislatures to enact laws and notify their enforcement, The Court sitting in a judicial review, cannot substitute its wisdom for theirs.
5. Court cannot issue any direction or writ, to State or Central Government, to bring into force a law or amendment in existing law, but once the law is brought into force by State or Central Government, this Court can look into its legality, with reference to retrospectivity etc. Similarly, there are several Acts which are sought to be amended from time-to-time, however, it is not for the Courts to direct the date from which the amendment is to be brought into force.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondents, as sought for by the Petitioner.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH, J FEBRUARY 23, 2022