1. Petition under Article 32 seeking the constitution of the Law Commission of India and its conversion into a statutory body. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 914
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1477 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R Venkataramani, AG, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, ASG, Mr. Neela Kedar Gokhale, Advocate, Mrs. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Mohd Akhil, Advocate, Mr. Durga Dutt, Advocate, Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. Digvijay Dam, Advocate, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate, Mrs. Rooh E Hina Dua, Advocate, Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Advocate, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataramani, Advocate, Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Sood, Advocate, Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Advocate, Ms. Sonali Jain, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Raman Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R Venkataramani, AG, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, ASG, Mr. Neela Kedar Gokhale, Advocate, Mrs. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Mohd Akhil, Advocate, Mr. Durga Dutt, Advocate, Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. Digvijay Dam, Advocate, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate, Mrs. Rooh E Hina Dua, Advocate, Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Advocate, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataramani, Advocate, Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Sood, Advocate, Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Advocate, Ms. Sonali Jain, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Raman Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Important Points
The court cannot issue a writ to Parliament to enact a law as it pertains exclusively to the legislative domain.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Jurisdiction and Powers of the Court
Act Referred
Headnote
Jurisdiction - Law Commission - The court declined to entertain the petition seeking to make the Law Commission of India a statutory body, stating that issuing a writ to Parliament to enact a law pertains exclusively to the legislative domain.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the Union government to constitute the Twenty Second Law Commission of India and make the Law Commission a statutory body.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the petition for making the Law Commission a statutory body, citing that issuing a writ to Parliament to enact a law pertains exclusively to the legislative domain.
Issues: Jurisdiction under Article 32, Writ of mandamus to Parliament, Relief sought for confiscating black money, benami properties, and disproportionate assets.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ cannot be issued to Parliament to enact a law as it pertains exclusively to the legislative domain.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and pending applications were also disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought directions to constitute the Law Commission and to compel Parliament to make it a statutory body. (Para 1 )
3. Issuing a direction to Parliament to enact law would require a writ of mandamus, which is impermissible in the legislative domain. (Para 4 )
4. A writ cannot be issued to Parliament in its legislative capacity to compel the enactment of a law. (Para 4 )
5. Petition disposed of; request for statutory status declined and other reliefs rendered moot or not pressed. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
6. Can a writ of mandamus be issued to Parliament to compel the enactment of a law?
No, it is a settled position of law that a writ cannot be issued to Parliament in its legislative capacity to enact a law, as this pertains exclusively to the legislative domain. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought a direction to the Union government to (i) take steps to constitute the Twenty Second Law Commission of India; and (ii) make the Law Commission a statutory body.
2. We have heard Mr Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, in-person and Mr R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India.
3. The Attorney General states that the Twenty Second Law Commission has been constituted by two notifications dated 9 and 10 November 2022.
4. The petitioner, as noted above, also seeks a direction 'to make Law Commission of India a statutory body'. Such a direction would necessarily implicate a writ of mandamus being issued to Parliament in its legislative capacity. It is a settled position of law that a writ cannot be issued to Parliament to enact a law. This pertains exclusively to the legislative domain. Hence, we decline to entertain the Petition for the subsequent part of the relief as claimed.
5. The final relief which is claimed in the Petition is for the Law Commission to prepare a report in the matter of confiscating black money, benami properties and disproportionate assets.
6. Mr Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay states that the relief as sought in prayer (c) is not pressed since the petitioner would independently pursue his request before the Law Commission.
7. The Petition shall accordingly stand disposed of.
8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
