Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that a writ court cannot direct the government to consider introducing a particular bill before the House of Legislature within a time frame, as it set aside and quashed a direction issued by the Madras High Court to the central government to bring a law on "liability in torts" within six months, terming it as "unwarranted".

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol said, "The law regarding power of the writ court to issue a mandate to the legislature to legislate is well settled. No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner."

With regard to the High Court's order, the bench said as far as the law of torts and liability thereunder of the State is concerned, the law regarding the liability of the State and individuals has been gradually evolved by Courts.  

"Some aspects of it find place in statutes already in force. It is a debatable issue whether the law of torts and especially liabilities under the law of torts should be codified by a legislation," the bench said.

Acting on an appeal filed by the Union government, the top court similarly set aside the High Court's "uncalled for" direction to the central government to take a decision with regard to the suggestion for making Law Commission either as a statutory body or constitutional body within a period of six months.

"There is no right vested in the applicant to claim that the Law Commission set up by the central government should be given constitutional or statutory status. 21 Law Commissions have already functioned and submitted reports. Whether Law Commission should be given a status under the Constitution or under a Statute is a major policy decision to be taken by the central government.  It is only the central government which can take a call on this issue," the bench said.

The High Court also gave a direction to the central government to appoint a "Nodal Officer", who is well qualified in law, in each department, to note down the Courts' recommendations to bring to the knowledge of the policy makers of each department by way of periodical reports within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, so that policy decision would be taken.

The bench again termed this direction as "unwarranted", saying whether a nodal officer should be appointed or not, is a matter to be decided by the central government. 

"The court cannot compel the central government to appoint a nodal officer. All the departments of the government have adequate notice of the judgements of Constitutional Courts in which recommendations are made for   the amendment of any legislation," the bench said.   

With regard to the HC's order to provide more funds to the Law Commission for research and more infrastructures, the bench said as and when the 22nd Law Commission submits the requisition for grant of funds, the central government will consider such requisition at the earliest considering the importance of the tasks assigned to it.    

"The central government must ensure that the Law Commission does not become ineffective on account of lack of funds," the bench said.

So far as the High Court's order for appointment of chairman and members of the Law Commission was concerned, the top court said that it has already worked out as the central government has also already done it by issuing a notification on November 9, 2022.

Case Title: Union of India Vs. KV Pushpavanam
 

Click here to read order