1985 (4) TMI 321 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Direction to the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit regarding the implementation of the Anti-Ragging Committee's recommendation.
2. Treatment of letters as a writ petition and maintaining the anonymity of the petitioner.

Summary:

1. Direction to the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit regarding the implementation of the Anti-Ragging Committee's recommendation:

The Supreme Court found the impugned orders of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, dated 24th July 1984 and 18th September 1984, directing the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit on the action taken towards implementing the recommendation in paragraph 16 of the Anti-Ragging Committee's Report, to be unsustainable. The Court opined that the High Court's direction was not merely to inform the court about the State Government's proposed action but was intended to compel the State Government to initiate legislation against ragging. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is within the executive's domain to decide whether or not to introduce legislation, and the judiciary cannot mandate the executive or legislature to do so. The Court reiterated that while it can compel the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal obligations, it cannot assume a supervisory role over legislative activities. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders directing the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit on the implementation of the recommendation.

2. Treatment of letters as a writ petition and maintaining the anonymity of the petitioner:

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court was within its jurisdiction to treat the letter from the guardian of a student and the letter from the student as constituting a memo of Writ Petition, as it is settled law that courts can treat letters as writ petitions to provide easy access to justice for the weaker sections of society. However, the Supreme Court found it erroneous for the High Court to direct that these letters should not be placed on the record of the proceedings and that the identity of the guardian and the student should not be disclosed. The Court held that keeping the petitioner's identity anonymous violates principles of fair play and judicial propriety, as the respondent must be able to verify the authenticity and credibility of the petitioner and the case brought forward.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's orders dated 24th July 1984 and 18th September 1984, in so far as they directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit regarding the implementation of the Anti-Ragging Committee's recommendation. The Court also criticized the High Court's procedure of maintaining the anonymity of the petitioner. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal. Appeal allowed.