W.P.(C)--3604/2014. Case: MOOL CHAND KUCHERIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--3604/2014 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | May 28, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 28th May , 2014
+ W.P.(C) 3604/2014
MOOL CHAND KUCHERIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Abha Malhotra, Adv. for R-1&2.
CORAM :-
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
-
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed as Public Interest Litigation seeks a direction to the Govt. of India, 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)
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 religious Gurus / Experts to see the smooth implementation of the guidelines.
-
The Supreme Court in Sarla Mudgal supra while dealing with petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India concerned with 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
W.P.(C) No.3604/2014 Page 1 of 4
uniform civil code throughout the territory of India and the long way it go in solving the problems were noticed and it was observed that Government would be well advised to entrust the responsibility to the Commission to bring about the comprehensive legislation in keeping modern day concept of human rights.
-
Nevertheless the fact remains that the Supreme Court, inspite having held so, did not issue any direction as the petitioner is asking us 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 SC 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 chaos with each organ of the State overstepping its jurisdiction interfering with the functions of another organ of the State. Similarly, 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 taken towards implementation of the recommendations contained in report of the Anti-Ragging Committee, was set aside and it was held that the order of the High...
To continue reading
Request your trial