Back
2008 Supreme(Ori) 194
2008 (II) OLR (SC) — 60
MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
Common Cause (A Regd. Society)... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others... Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 580 of 2003
Decided on 11th April, 2008.
Headnote:1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Art. 32 - Writ with prayer to direct the Union of India to formulate a suitable Road Safety Act - Legislation by amending the law - Court cannot direct legislation - It will not be a legitimate judicial function.
Before proceeding further, we may state that the Motor Vehicles Act is a comprehensive enactment on the subject. If there is a lacuna or defect in the Act, it is for the legislature to correct it by a suitable amendment and not by the Court. What the petitioner really prays for in this petition is for various directions which would be legislative in nature, as they would amount to amending the Act.
The directives sought for in this petition require the expertise of administrative and technical officials, apart from financial resources. Not only should the Court not give such directives because that would violate the principle of separation of powers, but also because these are highly technical matters to be left to be dealt with by administrative and technical authorities who have experience and expertise in the matter. For instance, what should be the maximum permissible speed for vehicles in a city, where should speed breakers be fixed, when should heavy vehicles be allowed on roads, and other matters for ensuring road safety are all matters to be dealt with by the concerned authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and other enactments, and it would be wholly inappropriate for the judiciary to meddle in such matters. Decisions on such matters by the judiciary land the administrative agencies in practical difficulties and make them bear the brunt of the decisions of the Court some of which are wholly oblivious to administrative needs and as such ill conceived.
(Paras - 23, 31 and 43)
2. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM - Court appointing committees giving power to issue orders to the authorities or to the public - Wholly unconstitutional - Power to issue a mandamus or injunction is only with the Court - Court cannot abdicate its function by handing over its powers under the Constitution or the C.P.C. or Cr.P.C. to a person or committee appointed by it - Such ‘outsour¬cing’ of judicial function is not only illegal and unconstitu¬tional, it is also giving rise to adverse public comment due to the alleged despotic behaviour of these committees and some other allegations - A committee can be appointed by the Court to gather some information and/or give some suggestions to the Court on a matter pending before it, but the Court cannot arm such a commit¬tee to issue orders which only a Court can do.
The justification given for judicial activism is that the executive and legislature have failed in performing their functions. Even if this allegation is true, does it justify the judiciary in taking over the functions of the legislature or executive ? In our opinion it does not, firstly because that would be in violation of the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, and secondly because the judiciary has neither the expertise nor the resources for this. If the legislature or executive are not functioning properly it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise properly in the next elections and voting for candidates who will fulfil their expectations, or by other lawful means e.g. peaceful demonstrations and agitations, but the remedy is surely not by the judiciary in taking over the functions of the other organs.
Unless Judges exercise self restraint, each Judge can become a law unto himself and issue directions according to his own personal fancies, which will create chaos.
It must be remembered that a Judge has to dispense justice according to the law and the Constitution. He cannot ask the other branches of the State to keep within their constitutional limits if he exceeds his own.
The judiciary can make some suggestions/recommendations to the legislature or the executive, but these suggestions/recommendations cannot be binding on the legislature or the executive (Paras - 36, 40, 47, 48 and 53)
3. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Art. 21 - Judicial deci¬sions have given powerful tools in the hands of the judiciary - These tools must be used with great circumspection and in exceptional cases and not as a routine manner - Art. 21 of the Constitution must not be misused by the Courts to justify every kind of directive, or to grant every kind of claim of the peti¬tioner. (Para - 37)
4. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - It is a weapon which is to be used with great care and circumspection.
The problems facing the people of India have to be solved by the people themselves by using their creativity and by scientific thinking and not by using judicial crutches like PILs.
The view that the judiciary can run the government and can solve all the problems of the people is not only unconstitutional, but also it is fallacious and creates a false impression and false illusion that the judiciary is a panacea for all ills in society. Such illusions, in fact, do great harm to the people because it makes the people believe that their problems can be solved by others and not by the people themselves. It debilitates their will and makes them believe that they can solve their problems and improve their conditions not by their own struggles and creativity but by filing a PIL in Court.
Public interest litigation has nowadays largely become 'publicity interest litigation', 'private interest litigation', or 'politics interest litigation' or the latest trend 'paise income litigation'. Much of P.I.L. is really blackmail.
(Paras - 54, 56, 58 and 59)
JUDGMENT
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. - 1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution furnishes a typical illustration of how public interest litigation which was conceived and created as a judicial tool by the Courts in this country for helping the poor, weaker and oppressed sections of society, who could not approach the Court due to their poverty, has over the years grown and grown, and now it seems to have gone totally out of control, and has become something so strange and bizarre that those who had created it probably would be shocked to know what it has become.
2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act which claims to be engaged in espousing problems of general public importance.
3. In the present case, the petitioner has referred to the rising number of road accidents in the country which are taking place in cities, towns and on national highways causing deaths, injuries etc. The petitioner has referred to the defects in the licensing procedure, the training of drivers, and the need for suspending licences in case of negligent driving, and driving under the influence of alcohol, which cause accidents etc. He has also referred to the inadequate infrastructure relating to roads and inadequate provisions of traffic control devices including traffic signals, traffic signs, road devices and other road safety measures. It has been stated in the petition that there should be proper and continuous coordination between various authorities which are connected with roads and control of traffic, and for this purpose the only appropriate remedy is to establish Road Safety Committees. The petitioner has also emphasized the need for having readily available ambulances for shifting the injured persons in road accidents to hospitals for immediate treatment.
4. The petitioner has also stated that there should be road safety education for the users of roads, pedestrians, traffic participants including cyclists, handcarts men, bullock-cart drivers etc., who generally have low socio-economic and educational background and do not know traffic rules and regulations. The petitioner has alleged that pedestrians and non-motorized traffic face enormous risks as they account for 60% to 80% of road traffic fatalities in the country. All non-motorized traffic need to be given thorough and repeated orientation in observance of road traffic rules and avoidance of any situations which can cause accidents. These road safety education programmes can include written material for those who are literate and also illustrations, slides, specially prepared films, and also publicity though the medium of TV and radio.
5. The petitioner has also alleged that there is a paramount need for enactment of a Road Traffic Safety Act to lay down regulations dealing with specific responsibilities of drivers, proper maintenance of roads and traffic-connected signs and signals etc., and all rules and regulations for observance by all concerned including pedestrians and non-motorized traffic. The Road Traffic Safety Act should contain all the regulations and the requirements relating to avoidance of accidents, responsibilities of respective Departments of State Governments, Municipal bodies, Police authorities, and the penalty for non-observance of prescribed regulations. The Act should specify the duties, responsibilities, rights, directives and punishments in case of failures by any one e.g. driver, vehicle, road user, etc.
6. The petitioner has alleged that the number of accidents has increased greatly over the years in India and hence he has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:
(i) to issue a Writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus and /or any other writ, direction or order directing respondent No.1 (the Union of India) in consultation with representatives of respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 (the Government of NCT of Delhi, and the State Governments of Maharashtra, Tamilnadu, West Bengal an
