Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofDecision: 15.07.2019
UNITED SIKHS & ANR Petitioners
Through; Mr.Girdhar Govind,Ms.Neetu Singh & Mr.Baljinder Singh,Advs.
N'ersus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents
Through: Ms.Monika Arora,CGSC with Mr.Vinod 7uvari,GP;Mr.Kushal Kumar&
Mr.Praveen Singh,Advs.for UOI Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,ASC with Mr.Aiul Goyai, Adv.forR..3&R.4
DTC PATEL,CHIEF JUSTICE(ORAL)
!. This public inieiest litigation has been prefeired with the follov/ing prayers: j
■*-
"a. Issue an appropriate writ/directions/orders Under Article
226 of trie Consiilvrion ofIndia for the orders of the Court to
Slate and its Intennediate to frame the laws and suidelines to protect the Constitutionairights of common citizens of India, minorities particularly Sikhs, v/ho are being targeted time and again. b. Issue an ' appropriate writ/directions/orders thereby directing the siate to come up with the response as to what steps they would take to protect the rights of innocent citizen, minorities particularly Sikhs. c. To pass law recommending the restraining of the hate crime which is being perpetratedfrom time to time in various part of the country and turning it into a commimalflare-up; w.p ap ins :(U9 page; of4
2019:DHC:7544-DB d. To lay down the guidelines to tackle the menace of communal mind set ofguilty persons who spread hatred in the name ofreligion, caste and creed and disturb the peace in the society within a stipulated timeframe by this Hon'ble Court; and e. Pass such other andfurther orders as this Hon'ble Court may deemfit in thefacts and circumstances ofthepresent case and in the interestofjustice."
JUDGMENT
2. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and counsels for the respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances ofthe case,we are ^ ' not inclined to give any direction to draft the law as praved for in prayer Clause (a) nor we can give any direction for prayer (c) to pass a law recommending restraining ofthe people from committing hate crimes.
3. The law is well settled that drafting of the law is the act of Legislature and the Court is to interpret the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State ofHimachalPradesh and Ors. vy.SatpalSaini(2017)11 see 42 has observed as under: "7, In Mallikariuna Rao v. State ofAndhraPradesh (1990) 2 see 707: 1990 SCC (L&S) 387 and in V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation 1993 Supp (3) SCC 9: 1993 SCC:i (L&S) 907, the Supreme Court held that the court Under Article 226, has nopower to direct the executive to exercise its law-makingpower.
8. In State ofHimachalPradesh v. A Parent ofa Student ofMedical Collese,Shimla(1985)3SCC 169:AIR 1985SC 910, this Court deprecated thepractice ofissuing directions to the legislature to enacta law: "4....The direction given by the Division Bench was really nothingshortofan indirectattemptto compelthe State Government to initiate legislation with a view to curbing the evil ofragging..." -V W.p. (C)7515/2UI[9] page 2of[4] 2019:DHC:7544-DB.y The same principle wasfollowed in AsifHameed and Ors. V. State ofJammu & Kashmir 1989Supp(2)SCC364: 1 SCEC358, where this Court observed that: "19....The Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advice the Executive in matter ofpolicy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within thesphere ofLegislature or Executive...." In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294:AIR 2002 SC 2112, this Court observed that: "19 it is not possible for this Court to give any directionfor amending the Actor the statutory rules. It isfor theparliamentto amend the Actand the Rules."
9. Similarly, in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union ofIndia (1989)4SCC 187:1989SCC (L&S) 569, this Court held that a court cannot direct the legislature to enactaparticular law. This is because under the constitutionalscheme. Parliament exercises a sovereign power to enact law and no other authority can issue directions to frame a particular piece of legislation. This principle was reiterated in State ofJammu & Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki and Ors,1192Supp(1)SCC548:1992SCC(L&S)427:AIR 1992 SC 1546, where this Courtobserved that: "10....A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Section 110 of the J & K Constitution, which is on the same lines as Article 234 ofthe Constitution ofIndia, vests in the Governor, the power to make Rulesfor appointment ofpersons other than the District Judges to the Judicial Service ofthe State of J & K and for framing of such rules, the Governor is required to consult the Commission and W.P.(C)7515/2019 page3of[4] the High Court. Thispower toframe Rules is legislative in nature. A writ of mandamus cannot, therefore, be issued directing the State Government to make the Rules in accordance with the proposal made by the High Court." In V.K. Naswa v. Union ofIndia (2012)2SCC 542: (2012)1 SCC(Cri)914, this Court referred to a large number ofdecisions and held that: "18. Thus, it is crystal clear that the court has a very limited role and in exercise of that, it is not open to have judicial legislation. Neither the court can legislate, nor has it any competence to issue directions to the legislature to enact the law in a particular manner." 4, Ifany stray incident has taken place in the society,the parties are at liberty to institute criminal or civil proceedings in accordance with the existing laws. There are sufficient laws in existence which take care of the situation as narrated in the memo of writ petition. We see no reason to give further direction to draft/enactthe law and to execute thereafter.
5. With the aforesaid observation,this writ petition is hereby disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI