W.P. (C) 3604/2014. Case: Mool Chand Kucheria Vs Union of India & Anr.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberW.P. (C) 3604/2014
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. and For Respondents: Mrs. Abha Malhotra, Adv. for R-1&2
JudgesG. Rohini, C.J. and Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Articles 226, 32; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 494
Judgement DateMay 28, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

Judgment:

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks a direction to the Govt. of India, to implement in a time bound manner the suggestion contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Mudgal Vs. Union of India 1995(3) SCC 635 to secure for the citizens a uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India and also seeks a direction for constitution of a Committee of religious Gurus/Experts to see the smooth implementation of the said guidelines.

2. The Supreme Court in Sarla Mudgal supra while dealing with the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India concerned with the status of the second marriage of a Hindu husband after conversion to Islam held such second marriage to be a void marriage in terms Section 494 of the IPC. However earlier judgments of the Supreme Court on the need for a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India and the long way it will go in solving the problems were noticed and it was observed that the Government would be well advised to entrust the responsibility to the Law Commission to bring about the comprehensive legislation in keeping with modern day concept of human rights.

3. Nevertheless the fact remains that the Supreme Court, inspite of having held so, did not issue any direction as the petitioner is asking us to issue. The reason therefor is clear from the other judgments of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in A.K. Roy Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 held that it is not for the Courts to censure the Executive nor is it for the Courts to take over the function of the Parliament, otherwise, there will be chaos with each organ of the State overstepping its jurisdiction and interfering with the functions of another organ of the State. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla (1985) 3 SCC 169, the order of the High Court of the Himachal Pradesh directing the filing of an affidavit setting out what action had been taken towards implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee, was set aside and it was held that the order of the High Court so directing was wholly unsustainable even though made in a public interest litigation. It was held that the direction of the High Court amounts to compelling the Government to initiate legislation and which the Court was not entitled to do. The Supreme Court held that it is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT