Full Judgment Text
2008:BHC-AS:11217-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 38 OF 2003
Dist.: SANGLI
Shivaji Dashrath Khot ]
Adult, residing at No. 1323, Peth Bhag, ]
Sangli 416 416 ] ...Petitioner
Versus
1) Sangli, Miraj, Kupwad Cities ]
Municipal Corporation, ]
through its Commissioner, having its ]
office at Municipal Office, ]
Sangli 416 416 ]
2) State Election commission ]
State of Maharashtra ]
through its Commissioner, ]
having his office at ]
New Administrative Building, ]
Opposite Mantralaya, Madam Cama Rd., ]
Mumbai 400 032 ]
3) The State of Maharashtra ]
through the Secretary, ]
Ministry of Urban Development ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 ] ...Respondents
Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner
Mr. N.V. Walawalkar for Respondent No. 1
Mrs. P.S. Cardoza, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
2
CORAM : B ILAL NAZKI and
S.S. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE: JUNE 19, 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) :
This P.I.L . is misconceived, as the petitioner wants this Court
to give a direction to respondent No. 3 to explain to this Court its
intention regarding making of amendment in the Municipal Acts so as to
disqualify a candidate in municipal election, who is held guilty of an
offence under Section 171I of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Counters have been filed in which it is stated that certain
recommendations were made by the Election Commission as well as
some official agency. Making a law or amending a law is an absolute
prerogative of the Legislature, and this Court neither can ask the
Legislature to amend a law or make a law. It cannot even ask the
Legislature whether it intends to amend a law or not.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to People's
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
3
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.,
(2003) 4 S.C.C . 399, State of A.P. v. National Thermal Power Corporation
Ltd. & Ors., (2002) 5 S.C.C . 206, and State of U.P. & Ors. v. Jeet S. Bisht
& Anr. (2007) 6 S.C.C . 586. In none of these judgments, the Supreme
Court has even suggested that the Courts in India can direct the
Legislature to make a particular legislation or to make amendment to a
particular legislation. Maybe, in certain judgments of the Supreme
Court, certain directions have been given by the Supreme Court in its
power under Article 141 of the Constitution, which can be characterised
as legislative in nature, but at no point of time, the Supreme Court has
ever given any direction to a State Legislature or to the Parliament to
make a particular law or amend a particular law. In fact, in 2007 (6)
S.C.C . 586, the Supreme Court has stated that the Courts, including
the Supreme Court, have no power to direct the Legislature to make a
particular legislation.
4. As such, no relief in this P.I.L . can be granted. It is
dismissed.
BILAL NAZKI, J.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
4
S.S. SHINDE, J.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 38 OF 2003
Dist.: SANGLI
Shivaji Dashrath Khot ]
Adult, residing at No. 1323, Peth Bhag, ]
Sangli 416 416 ] ...Petitioner
Versus
1) Sangli, Miraj, Kupwad Cities ]
Municipal Corporation, ]
through its Commissioner, having its ]
office at Municipal Office, ]
Sangli 416 416 ]
2) State Election commission ]
State of Maharashtra ]
through its Commissioner, ]
having his office at ]
New Administrative Building, ]
Opposite Mantralaya, Madam Cama Rd., ]
Mumbai 400 032 ]
3) The State of Maharashtra ]
through the Secretary, ]
Ministry of Urban Development ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 ] ...Respondents
Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner
Mr. N.V. Walawalkar for Respondent No. 1
Mrs. P.S. Cardoza, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
2
CORAM : B ILAL NAZKI and
S.S. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE: JUNE 19, 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) :
This P.I.L . is misconceived, as the petitioner wants this Court
to give a direction to respondent No. 3 to explain to this Court its
intention regarding making of amendment in the Municipal Acts so as to
disqualify a candidate in municipal election, who is held guilty of an
offence under Section 171I of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Counters have been filed in which it is stated that certain
recommendations were made by the Election Commission as well as
some official agency. Making a law or amending a law is an absolute
prerogative of the Legislature, and this Court neither can ask the
Legislature to amend a law or make a law. It cannot even ask the
Legislature whether it intends to amend a law or not.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to People's
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
3
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.,
(2003) 4 S.C.C . 399, State of A.P. v. National Thermal Power Corporation
Ltd. & Ors., (2002) 5 S.C.C . 206, and State of U.P. & Ors. v. Jeet S. Bisht
& Anr. (2007) 6 S.C.C . 586. In none of these judgments, the Supreme
Court has even suggested that the Courts in India can direct the
Legislature to make a particular legislation or to make amendment to a
particular legislation. Maybe, in certain judgments of the Supreme
Court, certain directions have been given by the Supreme Court in its
power under Article 141 of the Constitution, which can be characterised
as legislative in nature, but at no point of time, the Supreme Court has
ever given any direction to a State Legislature or to the Parliament to
make a particular law or amend a particular law. In fact, in 2007 (6)
S.C.C . 586, the Supreme Court has stated that the Courts, including
the Supreme Court, have no power to direct the Legislature to make a
particular legislation.
4. As such, no relief in this P.I.L . can be granted. It is
dismissed.
BILAL NAZKI, J.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
4
S.S. SHINDE, J.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::