COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 262 · Decided: 11-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 262 
COMMON CAUSE (A REGO. SOCIETY) 
If. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 580 of 2003) 
APRIL 11, 2008 
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
· Public Interest Litigation - Petitioner seeking directions 
to authorities for taking various traffic safety measures to control 
c occurrence of road accidents - Scope of - Held: Futile 
. directions to authorities as sought for by the petitioner amounts 
to legislative/executive action, which only the legislature/ 
executive is competent to give - Judiciary cannot encroach 
into the domain of the legislature/executive - The Courts must 
0 exercise judicial restraint and must not perform executive! 
legislative functions - Article 21 of the Constitution must not 
be used by the Courts to justify every kind of direction/grant 
every kind of claim - Not only should the Court not to give 
such directions because that would violate the principles of 
separation of power but also because these are highly technical 
E matters to be dealt with by the experts - Judiciary has its limits 
and can not solve all the problems - The country can ill-afford 
to be governed through court decrees - Moreover, adequate 
provisions available under Motor Vehicles Act for controlling 
the traffic and are obviously meant for road safety - Also there 
F exists a Road Safety Council which has been suggesting 
measures for road safety - If further provisions are required, 
the petitioner may approach the legislature/executive - It is 
clarified that the Court can certainly not amend the law - Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 - Constitutiof! of India, 1950 - Articles 14 
G and 21 - Judicial restraint - Exercise of 
H 
Judicial activism - Legitimate/illegitimate - Held: Courts 
giving wider meaning to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, 
in the light of new developments in the country, amounts to 
262 
' . "' 
.. 
.. 
' 
• 
COMMON CAUSE (A REGO. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF 
263 
INDIA & ORS. 
legitimate exercise of power - However, Courts laying down A 
new principles of law specifically reserved for the legislature 
amounts to illegitimate exercise of judicial power. 
Adjudication - Held: It must be done within the system of 
historically validated restraints and conscious minimizaiton 
of Judges preferences. 
B 
Judicial activism - Scope of - Discussed . 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of 'Separation of powers' - Applicability of. 
c 
Petitioner is a registered society which claims to be 
engaged in espousing problems of general public 
importance. A writ petition has been field by the petitioner 
before this Court highlighting various problems 
connected with traffic and road safety measures. In o 
connection thereof, the petitioner sought for issuing 
appropriate directions to the respondents and others for 
taking steps to set up fully satisfactory procedures of 
licensing of vehieles, licensing of drivers and to impart 
proper training required in connection thereto; to ensure E 
to provide requisite infrastructure on ·roads in order to 
maintain discipline on roads viz. signs, signals, footpaths, 
repair of roads etc. to ensure the availability of 
ambulances for immediate shifting of injured to the 
hospitals; to set up Expert Committees to suggest for 
minimizing the road accidents; and to take further steps F 
4· 
for improvement of the overall traffic system. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: Per Markandey Katju, J.: 1.1 The prayers made 
by the petitioner in this petition require this Court to give G 
directions of a legislative or executive nati.Jre which can 
only be given by the legislature or executive. The judiciary 
'-
cannot encroach into the domain of the legislature or 
executive. The doctrine of separation of powers has been 
discussed in great detail in the case of Divisional Manager, 
H 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A Aravali Golf Course & Anr. vs. Chander Hass, and this Court 
endorse the views expressed therein. (Para - 8) [278-G; 
279-A, B] 
B 
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Course & Anr. vs. 
Chander Hass, JT (2008) 3 SC 221 - relied on. 
1.2 This Court is fully conscious of the fact that the 
decision referred to by the appellant in the case of M. C. 
Mehta vs. Union of India, is a decision of a three Judge 
Bench of this Court and would ordinarily have been 
C binding on the Bench consisting of two Judges. However, 
a seven Judge Bench of this Court in the case of P 
Ramachandra Rao has clearly observed that giving 
directions

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.