Facts of the Case
This civil appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the appeal dismissed by the order passed on 18/09/1984 by the Honorable High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
The appeal has presented against the judgement of division bench of the Honorable High Court of Himachal Pradesh dates 8/07/1984 and dated 18/09/1984 to the extent they provide direction obliging the chief secretary of the state to take action as recommended by the anti-ragging committee in paragraph 16. The High Court stated that reason of dismissal that though working as the judiciary and as a watchdog for the constitutional right but any encroachment in the field of legislative or executive body in violation of the article of the constitution, so a court can allow direction regarding the action pleaded from the appellant to the other part where such other part is an executive body but cannot, by the way, create an obligation for the Legislature or Executive. The court also states the law has provided a very powerful weapon in the form of Public Interest Litigation, but while providing the public grievances court cannot enter in the spheres of executive and legislature.
On 4th April 1984, the Chief Justice the High Court of Himachal Pradesh received a letter by the guardian of a student of a medical college complaining that there’s an act of ragging by the seniors to the fresher juniors outside the campus as well as a hostel. Filing the writ petition the guardian annexed the letter received by him from his son about ragging. The letter was sent to the guardian on 25/03/1984. The Division bench of the court treated the two-letter annexed to the writ petition and treated the letters a memo, but further, the letter provided was not included in the proceeding and were kept anonymous pursuing to the request made in paragraph 6 by the guardian to keep their identity in confidence due to the fear of reprisal and same was accepted and agreed to by the court. The court accepted and entertained the writ petition filed and provided direction to the chief secretary to look into the matter requiring the attention of the university to the ragging activities. While the direction was issued by the high court, the state filed the affidavit to the confirm the matter and probe an inquiry into it.
1. Whether the division bench court was in error in deciding the legality of the matter.
2. The division bench of the court can fix an obligation on the executive body or legislature in providing justice.
The Honorable Supreme Court in its observation states that the order passed by the Division Bench High Court dated 24/07/1984 and 18/09/1984 was not invalid with a reason that such authority’s decision was justifiable if the Division Bench would certainly have initiated an enquiry from the chief secretary as what action is being taken by the state government to curb the act of ragging, by the way, initiating any legislation as recommended by the anti-ragging committee. Such enquiry could have been the legitimate process for more information regarding the steps taken by the authority to curb such brutal activity of ragging and by which the court could have been able to protect the interest and integrity of humanity if the interest of the court was to provide mere direction and no to compel the government to initiate the legislation the Division Bench could have dismissed the matter on the submission made by the chief secretary that the government will file an affidavit in this matter it deems fit in this purpose. The division bench of the court reiterates that such affidavits should be filed by the authority within the period of 6 weeks that literally meant the court was no intending the authority to merely filed the affidavit in reply but was indirectly appealing to inside the legislation requires to act against the brutal activity of ragging. The Division bench though intends to provide the relief which it finds logical but will have its own limitation provided under the Constitution of India. The procedure and authority to mandate and invent any such law in the state government is an act of the legislature to provide the mandate required to such law is completely within the sphere of the executive body. The public interest legislation is weapon provided by the law does not mean by anyway to expand the sphere of judiciary or by anyways to make a mockery of the other pillar of the Constitution. Further, the Supreme Court finds the decision to keep the anonymity of the letter in error has no person is allowed to be hiding behind the veil and also praying for the court rule justice in his/her favour.
The Honorable Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing the chief secretary of the State Government to file an affidavit within six weeks’ period to initiate the legislation as per the recommendation made in paragraph 16 of the report sent by the anti-ragging committee.
Supreme Court of India
Case No.: CA 1499 of 1985