Menu

Union of India vs. K. Pushpavanam

Case Comment, Publications

Bench- ABHAY S. OKA; J., SANJAY KAROL; J

Date of Hearing -August 11, 2023

Court- Supreme Court of India.

Appealed from- Madras High Court.

INTRODUCTION-

Union of India vs. K. Pushpavanam was an important judgment in the purview of judicial overreach and overstepping actions of the judiciary to control the legislative. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Or’s. vs. K. Pushpavanam held that no constitutional court has the power to issue a mandamus writ specifically directing the union government to enact legislation on any subject within a time frame. Moreover, only the central legislature has the power to make decisions in the matter of establishing the law commission as a constitutional, legislative, or statutory body.

FACT OF THE CASE-

  • The Supreme Court took cognizance of this appeal which was filed before it and contradicted the judgment passed by Madras High Court at Madurai bench dated August 17th 2021 in a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus. K.Pushpavanam filed the petition to highlight the gap in Indian legislation due to the absence of specific legislation on “torts and state liability” under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
  • The Madras High Court in its judgment passed five orders to the central government and its other departments such as the Ministry of Law namely-
  1. Draft a bill on torts and state liability within six months on the lines of the “Liability of Torts” Bill of 1965 and 1967.
  2. Affix the status of the law commission as either a statutory or constitutional body in 6 months
  3. Allocation of funds to law commission to carry out research and law-related infrastructure projects.
  4. To appoint the chairman and other members of the law commission within 3 months. 
  5. Each government department to have a legally qualified nodal officer to document judicial recommendations and convey them to policy framers within six months.

Therefore, the central government appealed against the Madras High Court’s directions, challenging the constitutional court’s scope to “order” the legislature, which is the union of India, to act within a stipulated timeframe.

THE MAJOR LEGAL ISSUE THAT CAME UP BEFORE THE SC-

  1. Whether the constitutional courts have the authority to order the Union of India to enact legislation within a stipulated time frame?

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY APPELLANT-

  1. The Appellants argued that the authority to confer law commission the title of a statutory, constitutional body, or even a leg of the legislative body lies with the central government and not the writ courts. Madras High Court by directing the union to act within a time frame was gross judicial overreach. The Writ court does not have any powers to order the government to decide on the issue of entrusting the government to confer the law commission a title.
  2. The Appellants asserted that the position of the chairman of the 22nd Law Commission has already been filled by a retired chief justice of India which automatically complies with the 4th direction of the Madras High Court.

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENT-

  1. The initial directive from the High Court does not mandate the legislature to pass laws on the topic of “Liability in Tort.” It merely instructs the legislature to consider the request made by the first respondent to enact such legislation. According to the respondents, this first directive from the Madras High Court does not “compel” the legislature to legislate on “Liability of Torts.” The directions were mere recommendations for the central government based on the previous judicial precedents of the Supreme, such as the case of the MCD Victims Association and Vadodara Municipal Corporation case signifying the necessity of the said legislation. 
  1. Respondents reiterated that the writ of mandamus in the 2nd direction did not order the union to enact a law in a peculiar fashion or timeframe. Stating the various decisions of the constitutional courts, the learned counsel argued that such directions and recommendations have always been made by the constitutional courts directing the creation and amendment of the legislation.
  1. The counsel further contended that such recommendations are always made by madras and other high courts in the country. He justified his contention by providing various examples from reputed court judgments and legal precedents. respondent counsel also referenced numerous reported judgments such as Vishakha Guidelines that were issued by the apex court utilizing its judicial activism.
  1. Respondents further argued that if nodal officers are appointed according to the fifth direction of the court, it will be effective for the central government to efficiently take into consideration the recommendations regarding the orderly enactment and amendment of legislation. 
  1. Lastly, the learned counsel argued that none of the five directions issued under the challenged judgment exceed the jurisdictional boundaries of the High Court as outlined in Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS: 

  • The court highlighted that when an appellant seeks a Writ of Mandamus, the duty of proving that a right exists in his favour is entirely on him. In this particular case, there is no right vested in the special leave petition that gives the applicant the power to have a say in whether the law commission established by the Union of India should or should not be given the statutory status. 
  • The Court also noted that the 3rd direction of the Madras High Court was premature and listed out the duties and functions of the law commission. 
  • The court further emphasized the judicial overreach of the court in directing the central government to appoint ‘nodal officers’ and stated that all the departments of the government are provided with sufficient notice and directions of the constitutional court judgments that also include recommendations for amending any acts.

DECISION:

In the case of Union of India v K. Pushpavanam  challenging the Madras High Court powers, the esteemed Apex Court held that:

  1. A court with special powers to entertain a writ petition cannot compel the central government to introduce a specific bill to the parliament within a specified timeframe. Hence, the initial order issued in the contested judgment was unjustified.
  1. The applicant does not have the right to demand that the Law Commission established by the Central Government be granted constitutional or statutory status.
  1. The 22nd Law Commission will require adequate funding for discharging its functions. Therefore, the central government must ensure an adequate supply of funds when and as required for the law commission to work efficiently so that it does not become ineffective resulting from insufficient funding.
  1. The decision to appoint a nodal officer, as per the 5th direction of the Madras High Court, is to be made by the Central Government. The Court cannot compel the Central Government to make such an appointment.
  1. The court further stated that the rule is clear that courts do not have the power to order legislatures to create or change laws on specific topics in a specific way. Constitutional Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus to force legislatures to pass certain laws. At most, a court can express its opinion or make recommendations about the need to amend existing laws or create new ones. Courts can advise, but they cannot command legislatures to legislate in a particular manner.

Directions 1, 2, and 5 are annulled. However, the union of India along with its departments should consider these orders as recommendations and make sincere efforts to comply with it. When the 22nd Law Commission requests funds, the Central Government should promptly consider this request, recognizing the importance of the tasks assigned to the Law Commission. The Central Government must ensure that the Law Commission remains effective and does not suffer from a lack of funds.

WHAT IS JUDICIAL RESTRAIN?

The idea of judicial restraint is contradictory to that of judicial activism. It envisions setting boundaries on the court’s actions to avoid encroachment on the legislative and executive. ‘The judicial interpretation theory of restrain advocates for the judiciary to minimize their use of power highlighting the court’s limited role as law interpreters and not policymakers.

The Supreme Court has in various cases shed light on the significance of exercising judicial restraint to maintain a balance of power between different limbs of democracy. Ironically the madras high court in a PIL case stated “Courts cannot poke their nose into each and every activity of the government”

INFERENCE-

The power of judicial review for the high courts has been provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. And has been utilized by the constitutional courts in many instances to correct and rectify legislative actions. However, it must not be overused. The purpose of this special power should not be to criticize or analyse the actions or inactions of the legislature, therefore, the opposition is expected to fulfil this role.

Union Of India vs K. Pushpavanam was a landmark judgment because it established the boundaries for the high courts to use their powers in directing the government. Today the courts in India do not play a passive role in just providing judgments but have widened their scope of intervention to policy-making of the government and public administration. Although these new affirmative changes are welcomed by society and duly needed considering the lack of action and inefficiency of the executive and legislative bodies failing state machinery, the courts must acknowledge their boundaries and limitations. 

The judiciary cannot also become legislators as they don’t have the people’s mandate or the practical wisdom required to enact laws. Moreover, it will be unconstitutional to do so, therefore the constitutional courts in the nation must exercise caution, and self-restraint and avoid encroaching on the legislative systems kept in place.

The case of Union of India vs K. Pushpavanam was a significant stepping stone in recognizing the distinction between “judicial activism” and “judicial overreach” for a democracy to function smoothly. This distinction helps maintain the separation of powers and upholds the Constitution’s supremacy.

SUBMITTED BY–

ANGEL SACHIN BHOSALE

B.B.A LL. B (HONS.) II YEAR (IV SEMESTER)

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY, MUMBAI UNIVERSITY