9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1548 - SC - Indian LawsDoctrine of separation of powers - Seeking amendment in the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 within a period of ninety days - State Government is aggrieved by the mandamus which has been issued by the High Court to amend the provisions of law - HELD THAT - The grievance has a sound constitutional foundation. The High Court has while issuing the above directions acted in a manner contrary to settled limitations on the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. A direction it is well settled cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a law. The power to enact legislation is a plenary constitutional power which is vested in Parliament and the state legislatures under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution. The legislature as the repository of the sovereign legislative power is vested with the authority to determine whether a law should be enacted. The doctrine of separation of powers entrusts to the court the constitutional function of deciding upon the validity of a law enacted by the legislature where a challenge is brought before the High Court under Article 226 (or this Court under Article 32) on the ground that the law lacks in legislative competence or has been enacted in violation of a constitutional provision. But judicial review cannot encroach upon the basic constitutional function which is entrusted to the legislature to determine whether a law should be enacted. For the Court to mandate an amendment of a law as did the Himachal Pradesh High Court is a plain usurpation of a power entrusted to another arm of the state. There can be no manner of doubt that the High Court has transgressed the limitations imposed upon the power of judicial review under Article 226 by issuing the above directions to the state legislature to amend the law. The government owes a collective responsibility to the state legislature. The state legislature is comprised of elected representatives. The law enacting body is entrusted with the power to enact such legislation as it considers necessary to deal with the problems faced by society and to resolve issues of concern. The courts do not sit in judgment over legislative expediency or upon legislative policy. This position is well settled. In MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 1990 (4) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT this Court held that the court under Article 226 has no power to direct the executive to exercise its law-making power. The judiciary is one amongst three branches of the State; the other two being the executive and the legislature. Each of the three branches is co-equal. Each has specified and enumerated constitutional powers. The judiciary is assigned with the function of ensuring that executive actions accord with the law and that laws and executive decisions accord with the Constitution. The courts do not frame policy or mandate that a particular policy should be followed. The duty to formulate policies is entrusted to the executive whose accountability is to the legislature and through it to the people. The peril of adopting an incorrect policy lies in democratic accountability to the people. This is the basis and rationale for holding that the court does not have the power or function to direct the executive to adopt a particular policy or the legislature to convert it into enacted law. It is wise to remind these limits and wiser still to enforce them without exception. The directions issued by the High Court for amending the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 and the Rules were manifestly unsustainable - appeal filed by the State shall stand allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to High Court directions to amend legislation under Article 226 - Judicial review limitations. Analysis: The judgment involves a challenge by the State of Himachal Pradesh against directions issued by a Division Bench of the High Court regarding amending Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The High Court directed the state to make suitable amendments to facilitate non-agriculturist Himachalis to purchase land in the state. The State contended that such directions encroached upon the sovereign legislative power of the state legislature. The Supreme Court analyzed that judicial review under Article 226 cannot extend to directing the legislature to enact or amend laws, as legislative power is exclusively vested in the legislature. The Court emphasized the principle of separation of powers and the constitutional function of the legislature to determine the need for legislation. The judgment cited various precedents to support the position that courts cannot direct the executive or legislature on matters of policy or legislation. The Supreme Court highlighted that the judiciary, executive, and legislature are co-equal branches of the state, each with specified constitutional powers. The judiciary's role is to ensure executive actions and laws comply with the Constitution, not to dictate policy or legislative changes. The Court reiterated that directing the executive or legislature on policy matters undermines democratic accountability and exceeds judicial authority. Therefore, the directions issued by the High Court to amend the legislation were deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeal by the State was allowed, and no costs were imposed. In conclusion, the judgment establishes the limitations of judicial review under Article 226 and emphasizes the separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislature. It underscores that courts cannot direct legislative bodies to enact or amend laws, as this power lies exclusively with the legislature. The decision provides a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional principles governing judicial review and legislative authority, ensuring the proper balance of powers within the state framework.
|
