Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Court’s Authority in Legislative and Policy Matters

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has underscored the boundaries of its jurisdiction in legislative and policy matters. The judgment, delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka, examined the validity of directions issued by the Madras High Court in a writ petition related to ‘Liability in Tort’ and other issues.

The Court’s observation, “A writ court can’t compel legislation or dictate policy decisions to the legislature,” resonated in the legal community. The ruling addressed the delicate balance between judicial recommendations and legislative action, asserting that while courts can offer opinions, enforcing legislative action remains beyond their purview.

The case involved a writ petition seeking directions for the appointment of the Chairman and members of the 22nd Law Commission and the enactment of comprehensive legislation related to ‘Torts and State Liability.’ The High Court’s directions, which included considering a bill on ‘Liability in Tort’ and appointments within specific timelines, were examined by the Supreme Court.

Justice Abhay S. Oka’s opinion echoed that the High Court’s directions overstepped the judicial boundaries. The Court found the direction to consider introducing a bill on ‘Liability in Tort’ unwarranted, emphasizing that while recommendations can be made, courts cannot compel legislation within a fixed timeframe. The direction for the Central Government to decide on the status of the Law Commission as a constitutional or statutory body was deemed a policy decision beyond the Court’s scope.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted the premature nature of the direction that demanded more funds and infrastructure for the recently constituted 22nd Law Commission. The direction to appoint a “Nodal Officer” was considered unnecessary, as such appointments fall within the Central Government’s jurisdiction.

The ruling highlighted the importance of respecting the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, cementing the notion that while courts can shape legal discourse through recommendations, the implementation of legislative measures remains a prerogative of the legislature.

The judgment, which clarified the Court’s authority in matters of legislation and policy decisions, is expected to have lasting implications for the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive.

Date of Decision: August 11, 2023

Union of India & Ors.  vs K. Pushpavanam & Ors.         

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/11-Aug-2023_UOI_Vs_K.Pushavanam.pdf"]                 

Latest Legal News