2014 (11) TMI 1080 - SC - Indian Laws

Direction carrying of census in a particular manner - Power of judicial review - Held 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 Power of judicial review - Held that - 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. 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 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 transgression of power of judicial review, and that makes the order sensitively susceptible.

Issues Involved:
1. Judicial restraint and the role of judges in policy-making.
2. Legality of High Court's direction for caste-wise census.
3. Interference with policy decisions by the judiciary.
4. Binding nature of earlier judgments on non-parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Judicial Restraint and the Role of Judges in Policy-Making:
The judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint, quoting Francis Bacon and Benjamin N. Cardozo to illustrate that judges should not innovate at pleasure or act as "knights errant" in pursuit of personal ideals. The court reiterates that judges should adhere to consecrated principles and exercise discretion informed by tradition and system. This principle underscores that judicial vision should not be allowed to cover celestial zones and should be disciplined by the necessity of order in social life.

2. Legality of High Court's Direction for Caste-Wise Census:
The case originated from a writ petition challenging the reservation for Scheduled Tribes in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, given the absence of a Presidential notification under Article 342 of the Constitution. The High Court directed the Census Department to conduct a caste-wise census, which was contested. The Supreme Court found that the High Court issued this direction without making the Census Commissioner a party and without proper justification. The court noted that the Census Act, 1940, as amended, and the notifications issued under it did not mandate a caste-wise census, except for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

3. Interference with Policy Decisions by the Judiciary:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction interfered with a policy decision, which is beyond the judiciary's domain. The court emphasized that policy-making is the prerogative of the executive and legislative branches, and judicial interference is only warranted when a policy is arbitrary, capricious, or violates constitutional provisions. The court cited several precedents, including N.D. Jayal v. Union of India and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, to support its view that courts should not transgress into policy-making.

4. Binding Nature of Earlier Judgments on Non-Parties:
The Supreme Court clarified that the earlier judgment of the High Court, which directed a caste-wise census, was not binding on the appellant (Census Commissioner) as they were not a party to the original case. The court referenced H.C. Kulwant Singh v. H.C. Daya Ram to assert that a person likely to suffer from a court order, who was not impleaded as a party, has the right to ignore the order as it violates principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgments and orders directing a caste-wise census. The court underscored the necessity of judicial restraint and the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters, reiterating that courts should not embark on policy-making or interfere with executive decisions unless they are arbitrary or unconstitutional. The judgment reinforces the separation of powers and the appropriate roles of the judiciary, executive, and legislature in governance.

← Previous Next →