2008 Supreme(SC) 646

2008(2) Supreme 865
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju, J.
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) — Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others — Respondents
Writ Petition (civil) 580 of 2003
Decided on: 11-04-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
PIL is not panacea for all evils. Court cannot overstep the domain of the legislature.

Headnote:(a) Doctrine of separation of powers – Reliefs sought by the petitioner can only be granted and implemented by the legislature or the executive authorities – The doctrine of separation of powers restrains the Courts in proceeding with the matters of this nature – Court should not encroach into the sphere of the other organs of the State – Court cannot direct legislation. (Paras 8, 26 and 27)

        JT 2008(3) SC 221; (2004)6 SCC 299: JT 2004 Supp (1) SC 326; (1989) 4 SCC 187: AIR 2006 SC 767; (2002)5 SCC 294: AIR 2002 SC 2112; (2003) 6 SCC 195: AIR 2003 SC 2612; JT 2007 (10) SC 509; AIR 1955 SC 549 – Relied upon.

        (b) Administration of Justice – Giving directions of a legislative nature is not a legitimate judicial function. (Para 11)

        2002(4) SCC 578 – Relied upon.

        (c) Judicial Activism – In its zeal to protect the right to speedy trial of an accused the Court cannot devise and enact bars of limitation when the legislature and statute have chosen not to do so – Directives of a legislative nature cannot be given by the Court, since legislation is the task of the legislature and not of the Court. (Para 17)

        2002(4) SCC 578 – Relied upon.

        (1996)4 SCC 33; (1998)7 SCC 507; (1999)7 SCC 604; (1988)2 SCC 602; (1996)4 SCC 33 – Referred.

        (d) Judicial Activism – Judicial activism can be both legitimate as well as illegitimate – Courts giving an expanded meaning of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution was a case of legitimate judicial activism – However when Judges, by judicial decisions, lay down a new principle of law of the nature specifically reserved for the legislature; the exercise of power becomes illegitimate. (Paras 18 and 19)

        AIR 1978 SC 597; 2002(4) SCC 578; JT 1989 (2) SC 548 – Relied upon.

        (e) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Vehicles Act is a comprehensive enactment on the subject – If however 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 – Petitioner’s prayer for various directions which would be legislative in nature cannot be granted as that would amount to amending the Act. (Para 24)

        1992 Supp(1) SCC 323: AIR 1992 SC 96; (2003) 6 SCC 195: AIR 2003 SC 2612; (2006)2 SCC 670: JT (2006) 2 SC 361; (2005) 13 SCC 287: AIR 2006 SC 767 – Relied upon.

        (f) Judicial Activism – Courts should not forget that a thin line separates adjudication from legislation – This line should not be crossed – Further, the Courts not being fully equipped to cope with the details and intricacies of the legislative subject, should not step into that domain. (Paras 34 and 35)

        (1997)6 SCC 312; (1996)5 SCC 125 – Relied upon.

        (g) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Courts appointing committees and giving these committees power to issue orders to the authorities or to the public – This is wholly unconstitutional – The Courts cannot abdicate their power to issue a mandamus by handing over its powers to a person or a committee appointed by it. (Para 36)

        (h) Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 21 – These are powerful tools in the hands of the judiciary – However, these tools must be used with great circumspection and in exceptional cases and not as a routine manner. (Para 37)

        AIR 1978 SC 597; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 1981 SC 746; AIR 1991 SC 101 – Relied upon.

        (i) Judicial Review – Prayers of the petitioner even if granted are not implementable – Futile writs should not be issued. (Para 39)

        AIR 1998 SC 190; AIR 1998 SC 889 – Relied upon.

        (j) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Chapter VIII – It contains provisions for road safety – If further provisions are required, petitioner may approach the concerned authorities for the purpose. (Para 52)

        (k) Constitution of India – Articles 32 and 226 – PIL – Courts are not the remedy for all ills in the society – Judiciary has its limits and cannot solve all their problems, despite its best intentions – The problems facing the people have to be solved by themselves by using their creativity and by scientific thinking and not by using judicial crutches like PILs. (Paras 53 and 54)

        (l) Constitution of India – Articles 32 and 226 – PIL – 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 – PIL has, in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together. (Paras 59 and 60)

        AIR 2005 SC 540 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act claiming to be engaged in espousing problems of general public importance.

        2. In the present case, the petitioner has referred to the rising number of road accidents in the country causing deaths, injuries etc.

        3. The petitioner has referred to the defects in the licensing procedure, the training of drivers, and the need for suspending licenses in case of negligent driving, and driving under the influence of alcohol, which cause accidents etc.

        4. 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.

        5. The petitioner has stressed the need for various measures, made various suggestions and prayed for issue of mandamus in this regard.

       Findings of the Court :

        PIL is not panacea for all evils. Court cannot overstep the domain of the legislature.

       Result : Writ dismissed.