The Supreme Court today upheld the appeal filed by the Central Government against a judgment delivered by the Madras High Court, by which High Court had disallowed caste based census.
The judgment authored by Justice Dipak Misra, is from a three judge Bench consisting of Justices Dipak Misra, UULalit and RFNariman.
The judgment quotes the question before it as, “The centripodal question that emanates for consideration is whether the High Court could have issued such a mandamus commanding the appellant to carry out a census in a particular manner.”
Overruling the Madras HC judgment, the Supreme Court observes, “As we evince from the sequence of events, the High Court in the earlier judgment had issued the direction relating to carrying of census in a particular manner by adding certain facets though the lis was absolutely different. The appellant, the real aggrieved party, was not arrayed as a party-respondent. The issue was squarely raised in the subsequent writ petition where the Census Commissioner was a party and the earlier order was repeated. There can beno shadow of doubt that earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was not a party to the said lis.”
The judgment says, “It is evincible that the said direction has been issued without any deliberation and being oblivious of the principle that the courts on very rare occasion, in exercise of powers of judicial review, would interfere with a policy decision. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. The Act has conferred power on the Central Government to issue Notification regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and the Central Government has issued Notifications, and the competent authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of the Court to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation, certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for.
The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy making by adding something to the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. There the judicial restraint is called for remembering whatwe have stated in the beginning. The courts are required to understand the policy decisions framed by the Executive. If a policy decision or a Notification is arbitrary, it may invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. But when the Notification was not under assail and the same is in consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how the High Court could issue directions as to the manner in which a census would be carried out by adding certain aspects.”
The Court also relied on the Section 8 of the Census Act and various notifications issued by the Central government.
Relying on a number of precedents, the judgment also says, “it is clear as noon day that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixitoffending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions and opinions but the Court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion.”
The Central government through a GoM (Group of Ministers) had approved of the caste based census in 2010. Census in India takes place every ten years, and the data collected through the census is vital for framing governmental policies. Census is also very important for deciding the reservation policy. Census of India Act, 1948, governs census in India.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9996 OF 2014
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 480 of 2012]
Census Commissioner & Others
... Appellants
Versus
R. Krishnamurthy
Dated;NOVEMBER 07, 2014
The present appeal depicts and, in a way, sculpts the
non-acceptance of conceptual limitation in every human
sphere including that of adjudication.
No adjudicator or a
Judge can conceive the idea that the sky is the limit or for that
matter there is no barrier or fetters in one’s individual
perception, for judicial vision should not be allowed to be
imprisoned and have the potentiality to cover celestial zones.
Be it ingeminated, refrain and restrain are the essential
virtues in the arena of adjudication because they guard as
2
sentinel so that virtuousness is constantly sustained. Not for
nothing, centuries back Francis Bacon1 had to say thus:-
“Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more
reverend than plausible, and more advised than
confident. Above all things, integrity is their portion
and proper virtue......Let the judges also remember
that Solomon’s throne was supported by lions on
both sides: let them be lions, but yet lions under the
throne.”
2.
Almost half a century back Frankfurter, J.2 sounded a
note of caution:-
“For the Highest exercise of judicial duty is to
subordinate one’s personal pulls and one’s views to
the law of which we are all guardians-those
impersonal convictions that make a society a
civilized community, and not the victims of personal
rule.”
3.
In this context, it is seemly to reproduce the warning of
Benjamin N. Cardozo in The Nature of the Judicial process3
which rings of poignant and inimitable expression:-
“The Judge even when he is free, is still not wholly
free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a
knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own
ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his
inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not
to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and
unregulated benevolence.
He is to exercise a
1
BACON, Essays: Of Judicature in I The Works of Francis Bacon (Montague, Basil, Esq. ed., Philadelphia: A Hart,
late Carey & Hart, 1852), pp. 58-59.
2
FRANKFURTEER, Felix in Clark, Tom C., “ Mr. Justice Frankfurter: ‘A Heritage for all Who Love the Law’” 51
A.B.A.J. 330, 332 (1965)
3
Yale University Press 1921 Edn., Pg- 114
3
discretion informed by tradition, methodized by
analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated
to ‘the primordial necessity of order in social life’.”
4.
In Tata Cellular V. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651,
while dealing with the concept of judicial review, this Court
referred to a passage worded by Chief Justice Neely, which is
as follows:-
‘I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a
judge and from those limitations I generalize to the
inherent limitations of all appellate courts reviewing rate
cases. It must be remembered that this Court sees
approximately 1262 cases a year with five judges. I am
not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker,
stock broker, or systems management analyst. It is the
height of folly to expect judges intelligently to review a
5000 page record addressing the intricacies of public
utility operation.’
5.
The fundamental intention of referring to the aforesaid
statements may at various times in the history of law is to
recapitulate basic principles that have to be followed by a
Judge, for certain sayings at times become necessitous to be
told and re-narrated.
The present case exposits such a
situation, a sad one.
6.
The chronology has its own relevance in the instant case.
One Dr. E. Sayedah preferred W.P No. 25785 of 2005 in the
High Court of Madras for issue of a writ of certiorari for
4
quashment of the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal in O.A. No.3/2002 on the foundation that when there
is no Scheduled Tribe population in the Union Territory of
Pondicherry and there is no Presidential notification under
Article 342 of the Constitution of India there cannot be any
reservation for Scheduled Tribe in the said Union Territory
and, therefore, the appointment of the applicant in the Original
Application who was appointed solely on the base that he
belonged to Scheduled Tribe was illegal.
However, the High
Court declined to interfere with the appointment considering
the length of service but observed that the appointee was not
entitled for any reservation in promotion. The High Court also
recorded certain other conclusions which are really not
relevant for the present purpose.
The direction that really
propelled the problem is as follows:-
“When it is the position that after 1931, there had
never been any caste-wise enumeration or
tabulation and when there can not be any dispute
that there is increase in the population of
SC/ST/OBC manifold after 1931, the percentage of
reservation fixed on the basis of population in the
year 1931 has to be proportionately increased, by
conducting caste-wise census by the Government in
the interest of the weaker sections of the society.
We direct the Census Department of the
Government of India to take all such measures
towards conducting the caste-wise census in the
5
country at the earliest and in a time bound manner,
so as to achieve the goal of social justice in its true
sense, which is the need of the hour.”
7.
At this juncture, to continue the chronology, it is
pertinent
to
21172/2009
mention
was
filed
that
before
a
Writ
the
Petition
High
No.
Court
of
Judicature at Madras, which was disposed of on
21.1.2010. While disposing of the writ petition, the High
Court had directed as follows:
“6. The second respondent, has filed a counter
and in paragraph 5 thereof, it is stated that the
second respondent have taken up the matter
with the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, as the issues relating to SCs,
STs and OBCs; are within the domain of that
Ministry.
The learned counsel for the
respondents, on the instructions of the Regional
Director, Chennai from the office of the second
respondent, states that the petitioner will got a
reply from the respondents within eight weeks
from today. We hope that the respondents will
consider the representation of the petitioner
Association in all seriousness and send them an
appropriate reply.”
8.
Be it stated, the Registrar General and Census
Commissioner was the respondent no.2 therein.
After
the writ petition was disposed of, the representation
preferred by Mr. K. Balu, President, Advocates Forum for
6
Social
Justice,
was
disposed
and
the
order
was
communicated to the writ petitioner. It reads as follows:-
“2. Caste-wise enumeration in the census has
been given up as a matter of policy from 1951
onwards. In pursuance of this policy decision,
castes other than Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes have not been enumerated in
all the Censuses since 1951. In Census 2011
also no question on enumeration of castes other
than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
has been included. As such, the first phase of
Census 2011 enumeration, namely, the
Houselisting
and
Housing
Census
is
st of April, 2010.
commencing on the 1
The
forms required for this phase of the Census has
already been printed in many States and
Instruction Manuals required for training the
enumerators has also been finalized and
printed. The second phase of Census 2011,
namely, Population Enumeration, is due to be
conducted in February 2011. The data gathered
in the first phase (April to September 2010) is
linked to the data to be collected in February-
March 2011. Hence, enumerating castes other
than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
will not be possible in that phase also. As such,
it is not possible to include any question relating
to the enumeration of Castes other than
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the
Census of India 2011.
3.
As regards the policy decision whether
castes other than the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes should be enumerated, the
manner in which such enumeration should be
done and by whom, the matter has been referred
to the nodal Ministry, i.e. Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment.”
7
9.
At this juncture, it may be noticed that the Writ
Petition(C) No. 132/2010 was filed before this Court by one
Kishore Govind Kanhere Vidharbha and Another seeking the
similar relief, which was disposed of on 13.09.2010 by passing
the following order:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners states that
as the purpose of the writ petition stands
worked out, he would like to withdraw the
petition.
The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed as withdrawn.”
10.
Presently, we shall proceed to state how the purpose of
the writ petition had worked out.
The respondent, R.
Krishnamurthy had preferred Writ Petition(C) No. 10090/2010
which stood disposed of by Division Bench by the impugned
order. As is manifest, the Division Bench has referred to its
earlier decision passed in W.P.(C) No. 25785/2005 and after
reproducing the paragraph from the said judgment, opined as
follows:-
“Since the relief sought for in the present writ
petition has already been answered in the
affirmative by issuing a direction to the authorities
to take all measures towards conducting the caste-
wise census in the country, we are of the considered
opinion that this petition is also entitled to be
allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed
on the same terms.”
8
11. Criticizing the aforesaid direction, it is submitted by Mr.
R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel that the High Court on the
earlier occasion had issued a direction without making the
Census Commissioner as a party and further there was no
justification for issuance of such a direction.
As far as the
impugned order is concerned, it is urged by Mr. Suri that the
direction issued by the Division Bench tantamounts to
interference in a policy decision as framed under Section 8 of
the Census Act, 1940, (for brevity ‘the Act’) as amended in
1993. Learned senior counsel would contend that the policy
stipulates for carrying out the census which includes
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, but not the other
castes.
He would urge that many a High Court have
dismissed similar writ petitions and, in fact, this Court in
WP(C) No. 133/2009 have declined to interfere and the same
was dismissed as withdrawn. It is proponed by him the view
expressed by the High Court is absolutely vulnerable and
hence, deserved to be lancinated.
12. Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance
on behalf of the respondent.
9
13. To appreciate the submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer to Section 8
of the Act, which reads as follows: -
“Section 8 – Asking of questions and obligation
to answer
(1) A census officer may ask all such
questions of all persons within the limits of the
local area for which he is appointed as, by
instructions issued in this behalf by the [Central
Government] and published in the Official
Gazette, he may be directed to ask.
(2) Every person of whom any question is
asked under sub-section(1) shall be legally
bound to answer such question to the best of
his knowledge or belief:
Provided that no person shall be bound to
state the name of any female member of
his household, and no woman shall be
bound to state the name of her husband or
deceased husband or of any other person
whose name she is forbidden by custom to
mention.”
14. On the foundation of the aforesaid provision, the
competent authority of the Central Government, in exercise of
the power conferred by sub-section(1) of section 8 of the
Census Act, had issued a Notification on 13.1.2000 which
relates to instructions meant for Census Officers. Clause 8 of
the said Notification being relevant is reproduced below:
10
“8. Information relating to the head of the
household
(a) Name of the head of the household
(b) Male – 1/Female – 2
(c) If SC(Scheduled Caste) or ST (Scheduled
Tribe) or Other? SC(Scheduled Caste)-
1/ST(Scheduled Tribe)-2/Other-3”
15. After
the
said
census
was
carried
Notification dated 25.2.2010 was issued.
out,
another
Clause 10 of the
said Notification reads as follows:
“10. If Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Others.
16. After the Notification in the year 2010 was issued, the
Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner
issued the Instruction Manual for Houselisting and Housing
Census.
In Paragraph 1.2, the historical background has
been stated. It is as follows:
“Historical background of Indian Census
1.2 The Indian Census has a rich tradition and
enjoys the reputation of being one of the best in the
world. The first Census in India was conducted in
the year 1872. This was conducted at different
points of time in different parts of the country. In
1881 a Census was taken for the entire country
simultaneously. Since then, Census has been
conducted every ten years, without a break. Thus,
the Census of India 2011 will be the fifteenth in this
unbroken series since 1872 and the seventh after
independence. It is through the missionary zeal and
dedication of Enumerators like you that the great
historical tradition of conducting the Census
11
uninterruptedly has been maintained in spite of
several adversities like wars, epidemics, natural
calamities, political unrest, etc. Participation in the
Census by the people of India is indeed a true
reflection of the national spirit of unity in diversity.”
17. Thereafter, the Instruction Manual provides for objectives
of conducting a census. We think it appropriate to reproduce
the same:
“1.3 India is a welfare State. Since independence,
Five Year Plans, Annual Plans and various welfare
schemes have been launched for the benefit of the
common man. All these require information at the
grass root level. This information is provided by the
Census.
1.4 Have you ever wondered how the number of
seats in Parliamentary/Assembly Constituencies,
Panchayats and other local bodies are determined?
Similarly,
how
the
boundaries
of
such
constituencies are demarcated? Well the answer to
that is also the Census. These are just a few
examples. Census provides information on a large
number of areas. Thus, you are not merely
collecting information; you are actually a part of a
massive nation building activity.
1.5 The Houselisting and Housing Census has
immense utility as it will provide comprehensive
data on the conditions of human settlements,
housing deficit and consequently the housing
requirement to be taken care of in the formulation
of housing policies. This will also provide a wide
range of data on amenities and assets available to
the households, information much needed by
various departments of the Union and State
Governments
and
other
non-Governmental
agencies for development and planning at the local
12
level as well as the State level. This would also
provide the base for Population Enumeration.
1.6 Population Enumeration provides valuable
information about the land and its people at a given
point of time. It provides trends in the population
and its various characteristics, which are an
essential input for planning. The Census data are
frequently required to develop sound policies and
programmes aimed at fostering the welfare of the
country and its people. This data source has
become indispensable for effective and efficient
public administration besides serving the needs of
scholars, businessmen, industrialists, planners
and electoral authorities, etc. Therefore, Census
has become a regular feature in progressive
counties, whatever be their size and political set up.
It is conducted at regular intervals for fulfilling
well-defined objectives.
One of the essential
features of Population Enumeration is that each
person is enumerated and her/his individual
particulars are collected at a well-defined point of
time.”
18. From the aforesaid, it is graphically vivid that at no
point of time, the Central Government had issued a
Notification to have a census conducted on the caste
basis.
What is reflectible is that there is census of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but census is
not done in respect of other castes or on caste basis.
That apart, the instructions elaborately spell out the
necessity and the purpose. It is reflectible of the concern
pertaining to assimilation of certain datas that would
13
help in nation-building, trends of population, availability
of requisite inputs for planning and fostering the welfare
of the country.
Be it noted, the Notifications dated
13.01.2000 and 25.02.2010 enumerate collection of
many an information including household number, total
number of persons normally residing in the household
(persons, males, females), name of the head of the
household, ownership status of the house, number of
married couple(s) living in the household, main source of
drinking water, availability of drinking water source,
main source of lighting, latrine within the premises, type
of latrine facility, waster water outlet, bathing facility,
kitchen,
fuel
used
for
cooking,
Radio/Transistor,
Television, Computer/Laptop, Telephone/Mobile phone,
Bicycle, Scooter/Motor Cycle/ Moped, Car/Jeep/Van,
and availing banking services, etc.
Thus, the Central
Government has framed a policy and the policy, as is
demonstrable, covers many an arena keeping in view
certain goals and objectives.
19. As we evince from the sequence of events, the High
Court in the earlier judgment had issued the direction
14
relating to carrying of census in a particular manner by
adding certain facets though the lis was absolutely
different.
The appellant, the real aggrieved party, was
not arrayed as a party-respondent.
The issue was
squarely raised in the subsequent writ petition where the
Census Commissioner was a party and the earlier order
was repeated.
There can be no shadow of doubt that
earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was
not a party to the said lis.
This view of ours gets
fructified by the decision in H.C. Kulwant Singh and
others V. H.C. Daya Ram and others4 wherein this
Court, after referring to the judgments in Khetrabasi
Biswal V. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors.5, Udit Narain
Singh Malpaharia V. Board of Revenue6, Prabodh
Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.7 and Tridip
Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State of W.B. & Ors.8 has
ruled thus:
“..... if a person who is likely to suffer from the
order of the court and has not been impleaded
as a party has a right to ignore the said order as
4
JT 2014 (8) SC 305
(2004) 1 SCC 317
6
AIR 1963 SC 786
7
(1984) 4 SCC 251
8
(2009) 1 SCC 768
5
15
it has been passed in violation of the principles
of natural justice.”
20. The earlier decision being not a binding precedent,
it can be stated with certitude that the impugned
judgment has really compelled the appellant to question
the defensibility of the same.
21. The
centripodal
question
that
emanates
for
consideration is whether the High Court could have
issued such a mandamus commanding the appellant to
carry out a census in a particular manner.
The High
Court has tried to inject the concept of social justice to
fructify its direction.
It is evincible that the said
direction has been issued without any deliberation and
being oblivious of the principle that the courts on very
rare occasion, in exercise of powers of judicial review,
would interfere with a policy decision. Interference with
the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a
policy in a particular manner are absolutely different.
The Act has conferred power on the Central Government
to issue Notification regarding the manner in which the
census
has
to
be
carried
out
and
the
Central
16
Government has issued Notifications, and the competent
authority has issued directions.
It is not within the
domain of the Court to legislate. The courts do interpret
the law and in such interpretation certain creative
process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to
declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is
called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain
spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or
abeyance. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy
making by adding something to the policy by way of
issuing a writ of mandamus. There the judicial restraint
is called for remembering what we have stated in the
beginning.
The courts are required to understand the
policy decisions framed by the Executive.
If a policy
decision or a Notification is arbitrary, it may invite the
frown of Article 14 of the Constitution.
But when the
Notification was not under assail and the same is in
consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how
the High Court could issue directions as to the manner
in which a census would be carried out by adding certain
aspects. It is, in fact, issuance of a direction for framing
17
a policy in a specific manner. In this context, we may
refer to a three-Judge Bench decision in Suresh Seth V.
Commr., Indore Municipal Corporation9 wherein a
prayer was made before this Court to issue directions for
appropriate
amendment
in
the
M.P.
Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956 so that a person may be debarred
from simultaneously holding two elected offices, namely,
that of a Member of the Legislative Assembly and also of
a Mayor of a Municipal Corporation. Repelling the said
submission, the Court held:
“In our opinion, this is a matter of policy for the
elected representatives of people to decide and
no direction in this regard can be issued by the
Court. That apart this Court cannot issue any
direction to the legislature to make any
particular kind of enactment.
Under out
constitutional
scheme
Parliament
and
Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power
to enact laws and no outside power or authority
can issue a direction to enact a particular piece
of legislation. In Supreme Court Employees’
Welfare Assn. v. Union of India10 (SCC para 51)
it has been held that no court can direct a
legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly,
when an executive authority exercises a
legislative power by way of a subordinate
legislation pursuant to the delegated authority
of a legislature, such executive authority
cannot be asked to enact a law which it has
been empowered to do under the delegated
9
(2005) 13 SCC 287
(1989) 4 SCC 187
10
18
legislative authority.
This view has been
reiterated in state of J & K v A.R. Zakki11. In
A.K. Roy v. Union of India12 it was held that no
mandamus can be issued to enforce an Act
which has been passed by the legislature.”
22. At this juncture, we may refer to certain authorities
about the justification in interference with the policy
framed by the Government. It needs no special emphasis
to state that interference with the policy, though is
permissible in law, yet the policy has to be scrutinized
with ample circumspection.
In N.D. Jayal and Anr. V.
Union of India & Ors.13, the Court has observed that in
the matters of policy, when the Government takes a
decision bearing in mind several aspects, the Court
should not interfere with the same.
23. In Narmada Bachao Andolan V. Union of India14,
it has been held thus:
“It is now well settled that the courts, in
the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not
transgress into the field of policy decision.
Whether to have an infrastructural project or
not and what is the type of project to be
undertaken and how it has to be executed, are
part of policy-making process and the courts are
ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so
11
1992 Supp (1) SCC 548
(1982) 1 SCC 271
13
(2004) 9 SCC 362
14
(2000) 10 SCC 664
12
19
undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to
see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law
is violated and people’s fundamental rights are
not transgressed upon except to the extent
permissible under the Constitution.”
24. In this context, it is fruitful to refer to the authority
in Rusom Cavasiee Cooper V. Union of India15,
wherein it has been expressed thus:
“It is again not for this Court to consider the
relative merits of the different political theories
or economic policies... This Court has the power
to strike down a law on the ground of want of
authority, but the Court will not sit in appeal
over the policy of Parliament in enacting a law”.
25. In Premium Granites V. State of Tamil Nadu16,
while dealing with the power of the courts in interfering
with the policy decision, the Court has ruled that it is not
the domain of the court to embark upon unchartered
ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to
whether a particular public policy is wise or a better
public policy could be evolved. Such exercise must be left
to
the
discretion
of
the
executive
and
legislative
authorities as the case may be. The court is called upon
to consider the validity of a public policy only when a
15
16
(1970) 1 SCC 248
(1994) 2 SCC 691
20
challenge is made that such policy decision infringes
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of
India or any other statutory right.
26. In M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. V. State of M.P.
& Ors.17, a two-Judge Bench opined that:
“.......... The executive authority of the State
must be held to be within its competence to
frame a policy for the administration of the
State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely
capricious and, not being informed by any
reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be
arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the
executive functionaries thereby offending Article
14 of the Constitution or such policy offends
other constitutional provisions or comes into
conflict with any statutory provision, the Court
cannot and should not outstep its limit and
tinker with the policy decision of the executive
functionary of the State.”
27. In State of M.P. V. Narmada Bachao Andolan &
Anr.18, after referring to the State of Punjab V.
Ram
Lubhaya Bagga19, the Court ruled thus:
“The Court cannot strike down a policy decision
taken by the Government merely because it feels
that another decision would have been fairer or
more scientific or logical or wiser. The wisdom
and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not
amenable to judicial review unless the policies
17
18
19
(1997) 7 SCC 592
(2011) 7 SCC 639
(1998) 4 SCC 117
21
are contrary to statutory or constitutional
provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse
of power. (See Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh v. State
of U.P.20, Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam
v. Union of India21 and State of Kerala v. Peoples
Union for Civil Liberties22.)”
28. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear
as noon day that it is not within the domain of the courts
to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular
public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better
policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if
the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not
informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse
dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
In certain matters, as often said, there
can be opinions and opinions but the Court is not
expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion.
29. As has been stated earlier, the Central Government
had issued a Notification prescribing the series of
informations to be collected during the census. It covers
many
areas.
It
includes
information
relating
to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and does not
20
(2007) 6 SCC 44
(2009) 7 SCC 561
22
(2009) 8 SCC 46
21
22
refer to any other caste.
In such a situation, it is
extremely difficult to visualize that the High Court, on
the first occasion, without having a lis before it in that
regard, could even have thought of issuing a command to
the Census Department to take all such measures
towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country
so that the social justice in its true sense, which is the
need of the hour, could be achieved. This, irrefragably,
is against the power conferred on the court. The High
Court had not only travelled beyond the lis in the first
round of litigation, but had really yielded to some kind of
emotional perspective, possibly paving the adventurous
path to innovate.
It is legally impermissible.
On the
second occasion, where the controversy squarely arose,
the High Court did not confine to the restrictions put on
the
jurisdiction
and
further
without
any
kind
of
deliberation, repeated the earlier direction. The order is
exceptionally cryptical.
That apart, it is legally wholly
unsustainable. The High Court, to say the least, had no
justification to pave such a path and we have no
hesitation in treating the said path as a colossal
23
transgression of power of judicial review, and that makes
the order sensitively susceptible.
30. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgments
and orders dated 24.10.2008 and 12.5.2010 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 25785/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 10090/2010
respectively are set aside. There shall be no order as to
costs.
........................J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
........................................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 07, 2014
................................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
No comments:
Post a Comment