The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a plea seeking direction to State to introduce a Bill "Advocate Protection Act" for the protection of Advocates practicing in the State.
The Bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed,
"We do not find ourselves legally equipped to give any direction for Legislation of any enactment."
This observation came in a plea preferred by one Sunita Sharma and another seeking direction to the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Uttar Pradesh to introduce a Bill "Advocate Protection Act".
Dismissing the plea, the Court remarked,
"The petitioners are desiring for a legislative function by this Court which is essentially a work of Legislature."
The writ petition, hence, was dismissed.
It may be noted that the Apex Court in the matter of Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India and Another AIR 1990 SC 334 had held that no court can direct the legislature to enact a particular law.
Similarly, in V.K. Naswa v. Home Secretary, Union of India and Others (2012) 2 SCC 542 , the Supreme Court had observed that it can not issue directions to the legislature directly or indirectly and any such directions if issued would be improper.
In related news, the Supreme Court had, in October 2020, dismissed a lawyer's plea seeking direction to Parliament to enact a law providing a uniform scheme of compensation for persons who are affected by violence and other tragedies.
"No mandamus can be issued to Parliament as a legislating body to enact legislation", said the bench comprising Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee.
Likewise, in September 2019, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea of Former Law Minister and Senior Advocate Dr. Ashwani Kumar, seeking a direction to Central Government to enact a stand alone comprehensive legislation against custodial torture.
Case title - Sunita Sharma and another v. Union Of India And 3 Others [Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 2 of 2021]