1. Writ petition seeking mandamus for appointment of Law Commission members and enactment of comprehensive legislation on torts and state liability. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 719
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
K. Pushpavanam & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5049 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 478 of 2022)
Decided on : 11-08-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Navanajay Mahapatra, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv. Ms. Priya R, Adv. Mr. S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Adv. Ms. Tanya Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Navanajay Mahapatra, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv. Ms. Priya R, Adv. Mr. S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Adv. Ms. Tanya Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner – Whether Law Commission should be given a status under Constitution or under a Statute is a major policy decision to be taken by Central Government.
No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner – Whether Law Commission should be given a status under Constitution or under a Statute is a major policy decision to be taken by Central Government.
Subject
Writ - Mandamus
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 32/226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner – Court may, at the highest, record its opinion or recommendation on necessity of either amending existing law or coming out with a new law – Only exception is where Court finds that unless a rule making power is exercised, legislation cannot be effectively implemented – When a litigant seeks a writ of mandamus, he must show a right existing in his favour and corresponding obligation of State to ensure that litigant is able to exercise said right – There is no right vested in applicant to claim that Law Commission set up by Central Government should be given constitutional or statutory status – Whether Law Commission should be given a status under Constitution or under a Statute is a major policy decision to be taken by Central Government – It is only Central Government which can take a call on this issue. (Paras 9 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal takes exception to judgment and order dated 17th August 2021 passed by High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in a writ petition filed by first respondent. A petition was filed by first respondent to issue writ of mandamus or any other Writ or direction or order in nature of writ, directing respondents, to propose a comprehensive legislation in field of 'Torts and State Liability'.
Findings of Court:
As and when 22nd Law Commission submits requisition for grant of funds, Central Government will consider such requisition at the earliest considering importance of tasks assigned to Law Commission. Central Government must ensure that Law Commission does not become ineffective on account of lack of funds.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a writ court can compel the legislature to enact specific laws or direct the government to change the legal status of a commission. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Writ courts cannot mandate legislative action or policy decisions regarding the status of commissions or appointment of nodal officers, though they may recommend such actions. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 )
4. Constitutional courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling the legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. (Para 12 )
5. Directions to legislate and change commission status quashed; government directed to ensure adequate funding for the Law Commission. (Para 13 )
6. Can a writ court compel the legislature to enact a specific law?
No. A Constitutional Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. It may only record its opinion or recommendation on the necessity of new or amended laws. (Para 8 , 12 )
7. Can a writ court direct the government to grant statutory or constitutional status to a body like the Law Commission?
No. Such a decision is a major policy matter for the government. A litigant must show a vested right to seek mandamus, and there is no vested right to claim a specific legal status for the Law Commission. (Para 9 )
8. Can a court compel the government to appoint nodal officers for monitoring judicial recommendations?
No. The decision to appoint nodal officers is a matter of government policy, and the court cannot compel the government to do so. (Para 11 )
9. What is the exception to the rule that courts cannot mandate legislation?
The only exception is where the court finds that the legislation cannot be effectively implemented unless a specific rule-making power is exercised. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17th August 2021 passed by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in a writ petition filed by the first respondent. A petition was filed by the first respondent seeking a writ of mandamus in the following terms:
“…….Therefore I most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to appoint the Chairman and other members of the 22nd Law Commission constituted through the notification in number F. No.A45012/1/2018Admn. Ill (LA) dated 21.02.2020 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. Therefore I most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other Writ or direction or order in nature of writ, directing the respondents, to propose a comprehensive legislation in the field of 'Torts and State Liability' as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in " MCD V. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn (2011) 14 SCC 481” and “ Vadadora Municipal Corporation V. Purshotam v Murjani and Others (2014) 16 SCC 14” in accordance with law within the lime stipulated by this Hon'ble Court………..”
3. Before the writ petition filed by the first respondent was taken up for final hearing, following queries were made by the High Court to the respondents in the writ petition (appellants herein). The said queries read thus :
“(a) In how many judgments, the Constitutional Courts have recommended for enactment of new laws or amendments of the existing Acts, so far?
(b) How many orders have been acted upon and suitable Acts/Rules and amendments to the existing Acts, have been done so far and what are all the new Acts/Rules and the amendments made so far?
(c) How many judgments are being acted upon and suitable Acts/Amendments are in the process of enactment?
(d) When will the Parliament will bring a comprehensive suitable legislation in the field of 'Torts and State Liability' for violation of fundamental rights of the citizens at the hands of the State and its officials?
(e) Whether the Central and State Governments are having appropriate Wings to note down the judgments/orders of the Constitutional Courts, wherein suggestions for enacting new Acts or amendments have been enacted/proposed or recommended?
(f) If there is no such Wing, when such Wing will be established to bring those suggestions to the higherups or policy makers to act upon suggestions given by Courts?
(g) When does the Central Government appoint Chairman and Members of 22nd Law Commission of India?”
4. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment, the Court issued the following directions:
(1) This Court directs the Government to consider introducing a bill, similar to which has been introduced in the year 1965 viz., "Liability in Tort" bill introduced in 1965 and reintroduced 1967 and got lapsed due to dissolution of Parliament during 1970, taking into account the present scenario, within a period of six months.
(2) There shall be a direction to the Central Government to take a decision with regard to the suggestion for making Law Commission either as a statutory body or constitutional body within a period of six months.
(3) The Central Government shall allot more funds to the Law Commission for research and more infrastructures to Law Commission of India at the earliest.
(4) The Respondents shall appoint the Chairman and Members of Law Commission of India within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which Respondents 1 & 3 shall appear before this Court.
(5) The Respondents shall appoint a "Nodal Officer", who is well qualified in law, in each department, to note down the Courts' recommendations to bring to the knowledge of the PolicyMakers of each department by way of periodical reports within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, so that policy decision would be taken.”
SUBMISSIONS
5. Ms
