The main legal point established in the judgment is that the role of the judiciary is limited in the matter of governance of the country and it should refrain from taking the functions of the Legislative or Executive in its hand, using its power only in exceptional cases and not in a routine manner.

Narayan Shukla, J.

1. Heard Mr. Satya Narayan Shukla, petitioner in person, Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, Union of India as well as Mr. H.K. Bhatt, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioner being an Advocate, has filed this petition styled as Public Interest Litigation to issue a mandamus to the respondents to come out with a comprehensive concrete time bound action plan for fulfilling by 2030 the promise made in the Preamble of Constitution and mandate formulated in the Directive Principles for eradication of poverty along with some ancillary reliefs. The petitioner has also proposed some suggestions to ensure prompt and effective action to achieve the objectives of the directive principles of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner has made the submissions that the preamble of the Constitution of India promises to provide justice to socially, economically and politically backward people of India. The concept of social and economic justice to build a welfare State has been recognized as a basic feature of our Constitution. He has enumerated so many principles enshrined as directive principles under Part IV of the Constitution of India. He has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Mohini Jain (Miss) v. State of Karnataka and others (1992) SCC 666 : ( AIR 1992 SC 1858 ). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under

"9. The directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part HI. These principles have to be read into the fundamental rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under part HI could be enjoyed by all...."

3. As per contentions of the petitioner he had sought some information from the Planning Department of the State Government with respect to various schemes in the State Sector for the persons living below poverty line as to what schemes have been framed by the Government for their empowerment, but the department concerned had refused to provide the information and replied that it was not possible to ascertain from the details given by the planning department as to which schemes are for persons living below poverty line. Similarly he had asked the similar information from the different departments of the State Government but those had also not been supplied to him.

4. It has further been contended that in his message to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Bar Association on the occasion of National Law Day on 26.11.2014 the Hon'ble Prime Minister had expressed his concern for the deprived sections of the society. He cited a case of Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another (1998) 1 SCC 226 : (ATR 1998 SC 889, para 51). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under

"49. There are ample powers conferred by Article 32 read with Article 14 2 to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Article 14 1 and there is mandate to all authorities to act in aid of the orders of this Court as provided in Article 14 4 of the Constitution. In a catena of decisions of this Court, this power has been recognized and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role...."

5. In the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2116 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and another 2002 ATR SCW 2186 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2112 ), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded the following law

"The Supreme Court cannot give any directions for amending the Act or the statutory Rules. It is for Parliament to amend