LI Network
Published on: 13 August 2023 at 13:42 IST
The Supreme Court, comprised of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol, recently reaffirmed that a writ court lacks the authority to compel legislative action on a specific topic.
The bench emphasized that a writ court can suggest amendments or highlight the necessity for new legislation but cannot enforce the introduction of a particular bill in the legislature.
The issue came to light through an appeal by the Union Government, contesting various directions issued by the Madras High Court to the Central Government. The directions included urging the consideration of the Law Commission’s transformation into a statutory or constitutional body and demanding the introduction of a bill on Liability in Tort.
The Madras High Court’s directions encompassed the following:
1. Urged the Union Government to contemplate presenting a Bill concerning Liability in Tort within six months.
2. Directed the Union Government to decide on making the Law Commission a statutory or constitutional entity within six months.
3. Instructed the Union Government to allocate increased funds and infrastructure to the Law Commission.
4. Mandated the Union Government to appoint the Chairman and Members of the Law Commission within three months.
5. Required the Union Government to appoint a proficient Nodal Officer in each department within six months.
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside Directions 1, 2, and 5, explaining that a writ court cannot compel the introduction of a specific bill by the government.
The Court questioned whether codifying the law on torts was even necessary, expressing reservations on the matter.
The Supreme Court also mentioned that the status of the Law Commission as a statutory or constitutional entity is a policy decision that falls under the Center’s purview.
Addressing the third direction, the Court noted that while it’s premature to mandate the allocation of additional funds, it urged the Central Government to consider and grant requisite funds when the 22nd Law Commission seeks them for its functions.
Regarding the fourth direction concerning the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Law Commission, the Court acknowledged that this step had already been taken.
Lastly, the Supreme Court found the fifth direction unnecessary and observed that compelling the Central Government to appoint a Nodal Officer was unwarranted.
The Court emphasized that the government departments are adequately informed of the recommendations made by Constitutional Courts for legislative amendments.