STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus A PARENT OF A STUDENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE, SIMLA & ORS

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 11-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
616 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
A PARENT OF A STUDENT OF 
MEDICAL COLLEGE, SIMLA & ORS 
April 11, 1985. 
(P.N. BHAGWATJ, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND 
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J 
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 32 and 226 P~b/ic Interest Litigation. 
Practice &: Procedure : 
Court1-Public Interest litigatian-Entertainment of-When arises. 
Lei/er treated as Writ Petition -Disclosure of identity Of petltioner-
Necessity of. 
Legislation-Initiation of-Giving of directions by Court-Validity of. 
The Chief Justice of the High Court received a letter from the guardian of 
a student of the Medical College in Simla complaining about the ragging of 
freshers by senior students within as also outside the college c~mpus and the 
hostel. The guardian of the student had annexed along with'. the said letter 
to the Chief Justice, a I etter received by him from his son. The I Division Bench 
of the High Court presided over by the Chief Justice treated ibese two letters 
as constituting the Memo of Writ Petition, but directed that these two letters 
should not be placed on the record of the proceeding in view Of the request 
made by the guar~ian that the identity of the writer should not, be disclos~d in 
the proceedings. 
The Division Bench rogistered the two letters as a Writ Petition, and issued 
notice to the State Government, anti the Principal of the Medical College, After 
hearing the respondents the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the 
practice of ragging was prevalent in the Medical Co11ege on a noticeable scale 
and that ragging took the form of subjecting freshers including female students 
H 
to inhuman and hnmiliating treatment degenerating even :into physical violence 
,. 
eiMACllAL PRADESH v. A PARENT OF s±ui>ilN'i: 
677 
and that the co11ege authorities had not been able to effectively control such ragg-
A 
ing. It' gave various dire.ctions which included a diretion to the State Govern-
ment to constitute a [Committee-Allti-Ragging Committee-to go into the 
question and make recommendations in regard to the curative, preventive· and 
punitive measures to be adopted by the college authorites to control and curb 
the evil of ragging. 
Anti-Ragging Committee recommended that the State Government 
B 
could iuitiate legislation which 1nakesragging a cogniZable offence and prescfibe 
punishment commeosuratewith the crimes cJmrnitted. 
Whea the matter was taken up again for hearing the Division Bench 
directed the State Government to file an affidavit indicating th~ action taLen on 
the Report. 
An affidavit to the effect that the State Government had 
'taken notice of the recommendations to initiate legi
1dation in this behalf if 
found necessary and so advised," was filed on behatr of the State Government. 
The Division Bench further directed the State Government to initiate le&islation 
against ragQ:ing and for this pilrpose granted the State Government 6 weeks' 
time. 
In the appeal by the State, to this Court it was contended that the 
Court could not give directions to the State Government to initiate legislation 
on ragging. 
Allowing the Appeal. 
HELD. 1. The Division Bench was Clearly in error ici iSsuing a direction 
to the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit within 6 weeks setting out the action 
taken by the State Government with a view to implementing the Committee's 
recommendation. [684] 
2. The direction given by the Division Bench was really nothing short 
of an indirect attempt to compel the State Government to initiate legislation 
with a vrew to curbing the evil of ragging. [683C] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
3. It is entirely a matter for the executive branch of the Government· 
to decide whether or not to introduce any particular legislation. But the Court 
Certainly cannot mandate the executive or any member of the. legislature to 
initiate legislation, howspver necessary or desirable the Court may consider 
it to be. That is not a matter which is within the sphere of the fuoc-
G 
tions and duties allocated to the judiciary under the Constitution. [683E-F] 
4. If the executive is not carrying out any duty laid upon it by the Consti-
tution or the Jaw, the Court can certainly require the e.itecutive to carry out such 
duty.and this is precisely what the Court does when it entertains public interest 
litigation. [683F) 
ff 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] 3 s.c.ll.. 
5. When the Court passes any orders in public interest litigation, the 
Court does so not with a

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