Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KANHAIYA LAL SETHIA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/08/1997
BENCH:
A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 4TH OF AUGUST, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami
Vijay Hansaria, and Sunil K. Jain, Advs. for M/s. Jain
Hansaria & Co., Advs. for the Petitioners
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
In this writ Petition, filed by way of ’Public Interest
Litigation’. the petitioners have Prayed as follows :-
(a) Direct respondent No.1 (Union of India) to
introduce an Official Bill in the Parliament to include
Rajasthani language in the VIIIth Schedule to the
constitution; or to sponsor a Private Member’s Bills
to be introduced on this subject;
Or, in the alternative:
strike down the constitutional
(71st Amendment) Act of 1992 by
which Manipuri, Konkani and Nepali
found their places in the VIIIth
Schedule, to the constitution being
violative of one of the basic
structures of the Constitution, viz
equality"
(b) pass such order/order or give
such direction/directions as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper.
To include or not to include a particular language in
the VIIIth Schedule is a policy matter of the Union.
Generally speaking, the Courts do not, in exercise of their
power of judicial review, interfere in policy matters of the
State, unless the policy so formulated either violates the
mandate of the Constitution or any statutory provision or is
otherwise actuated by mala fides. No such infirmity is
present in the instant case.
The petitioner, is not vested with any fundamental
right to compel the Union of India to bring forth a
particular legislation or to exercise its discretion in the
Parliament in a particular manner. It is, thus, not open to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the petitioner to seek a direction to the Union of India "to
sponsor a Private Member’s Bill to be introduced on this
subject".
Insofar as the challenge to the constitutional validity
of the 71st Amendment Act of 1992 by which Manipuri, Konkani
and Nepali were included in the VIIIth Schedule is
concerned, we fail to see how the inclusion of those
languages violates any "basic structure of the Constitution"
as alleged by the petitioners. The challenge, "in the
alternative", is without any merits.
This writ petition under Article 32 is misconceived and
it is, accordingly, dismissed.