24 April 2017 3:25 PM GMT
The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a PIL filed by BJP spokesperson and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay for a direction to the government to review the working of the Constitution.Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar asked Upadhyay when his party (BJP) is in power at the Centre and no decision was taken, the court cannot intervene as the issue raised by him is a policy matter and it is...
The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a PIL filed by BJP spokesperson and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay for a direction to the government to review the working of the Constitution.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar asked Upadhyay when his party (BJP) is in power at the Centre and no decision was taken, the court cannot intervene as the issue raised by him is a policy matter and it is indeed the prerogative of legislature and executive.
At the outset the bench observed that the prayers, which the petitioner desire to effectuate, through the exercise of authority vested in this Court, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, are indeed the prerogative of the executive, and legislative functioning of the respective authorities.
Petitioner’s counsel argued that “despite reports from two separate judicial commissions on the fundamental duty of the state, they (govt.) have not done anything”.
“It is not they, it is you. Your party is ruling and you are running the government. Why are you seeking the court’s intervention,” the bench asked.
It declined to direct the Centre to implement recommendations Justice Verma commission in 1999 and Justice Venkatachaliah commission in 2002, on the issue for relook into the working of the Constitution, saying: “It is the issue of policy. The government may have taken a conscious decision not to implement them.”
"We are also of the view, that the petitioner approaching this Court with a prayer seeking directions for implementation of recommendations contained in a report furnished in 1999, and another report furnished in the year 2002, does not appear to be bona fide specially in view of the credentials of the petitioner, which are depicted in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced here under: “That petitioner is an Advocate, practicing before this Hon'ble Court and a social-political activist, contributing his best to the development of the socially-economically downtrodden people of the country and ameliorating their condition. Petitioner has been worked with social activist Sh.Anna Hazare and actively participated in India Against Corruption movement. It has been Founder Member of AAP and now Official Spokesperson of BJP but filing this PIL in his personal capacity.”, said the Bench
In the plea, the petitioner contended: “It is very unfortunate that the Union and state governments have not taken appropriate steps to implement those recommendations in letter and spirit.”
Read the Order here.