STATE OF- UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus SUBHASH CHANDRA JAISWAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 12 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 29-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 12 S.C.R. 131 
STATE OF- UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
v. 
SUBHASH CHANDRA JAISWAL AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 11381 of2016) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Judicial Restraint - In a writ petition filed u/Art. 226 alleging 
violation of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 Rules, High Court issued 
general comments on investigation, issued a host of directions for 
C 
constituting separate specialized cadre and required an affidavit to 
be filed as to whether sanctioned strength of police is adequate or 
not to maintain law and order etc. - Propriety of- Held: High 
Court in a case of the present nature could not have issued such 
general directions which fell in the exclusive domain of the 
Legislature and/or ·were beyond the scope of the litigation - High 
D 
Court while dealing with a lis is expected to focus on the process of 
adjudication and decide the matter - It cannot enter into the domain 
where amendment to legislations and other regulations are 
necessary - Court cannot take steps for jiwning a policy - There is 
a thin line that separates adjudication from legislation - Impugned 
E 
order passed by High Court accordingly set aside - Practice and 
Procedure - Constitution of India -Art.226 - U.P. Excise Settlement 
of Licenses for Retail Sale of Foreign Liquor (excluding Beer and 
Wine) Rules, 2001 - U.P. Excise (Settlement of Licenses Retail Sale 
of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002- U.P. Excise (Settlement of Licenses· 
for Retail License for Model Shop of Foreign Liquor) Rules, 
F 
2003 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471. 
Constitution of India - Constitutional Scheme - Principle of 
separation of powers -
Discussed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the High Court could not 
have issued such directions some of which were in the field of 
exclusive domain of the Legislature. [Para 10] [139-F] 
1.2 The High Court should have reminded itself that it 
131 
G 
H 
132 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
r2016112 s.c.R. 
cannot enter into the domain where amendment to legislations 
and other regulations are necessary. A court cannot take steps 
for framing a policy. It is the duty of the State Government to 
discharge its obligations in the matters relating to law and order 
and remain alert to the issues that emerge. It has a duty also to 
see that the investigations are speedily completed in an 
appropriate manner. If there is a failure oflaw and order situation, 
the executive is to be blamed. In the maintenance of law and 
order situation the judicial officers are not to be involved. But 
the executive has to remain absolutely alive to its duties. The 
State Government shall look into the aspects and endeavour to 
see that appropria:te steps are taken to maintain the law and order 
situation. [Paras 23, 24] [144-C-F] 
· 1.3 It is expected that the High Courts while dealing with 
the /is are expected to focus on the process of adjudication and 
decide the matter. The concept, what is thought of or experienced 
cannot be ingrained or engrafted into an order solely because 
such a thought has struck the adjudicator. It must flow from the 
factual base and based on law. To say the least, in the present 
case, some of the directions issued were not permissible and all 
of them were totally unrelated to the case before the High Court . 
. A Court cannot take steps for framing a policy. The directions 
E 
issued by the High Court and the queries made by it related to 
various spheres which the High Court should not have gone into. 
It had a very limited tis before it. A Judge should not perceive a 
situation in a generalised manner. In the instant case, the 
F 
G 
H 
controversy was absolutely different but the High Court 
generalised it and issued the directions. The directions definitely 
show some anxiety on the part of the Judges, but it is to be 
remembered that directions are not issued solely out of concern. 
They have to be founded on certain fegally justifiable principles 
t!tat have roots in the laws of the country. [Paras 11, 16, 17 & 23] 
[140-A-B, C; 143-D-F] 
Raj Prakash v. State of U.P and Others Writ-C No. 
40344 of 2011 by U. P. High Court; Su brat a Roy Sahara 
v. Union of India and others (2014) 8 SCC 470 : .2014 
(12) SCR 573; Gurdev Kaur and others v. Kaki and 
others (2007) 1 SCC 546 : 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 27; 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SUBHASH CHANDRA 
JAISWAL 
Census Commissioner and others v. R. Krishnamurthy 
(2015) 2 SCC 796 :

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