Holding

A court cannot issue directions that amount to legislation or policy‑making; such directions are ultra vires and must be set aside.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a writ petition filed under Art.226 that sought mandamus against certain respondents for alleged violations of excise licence rules and alleged fraud. The High Court, after examining the investigation, issued a series of sweeping directions ordering the creation of a separate investigative cadre, affidavits on police strength, establishment of forensic labs and other policy measures. The Supreme Court held that such directions encroached upon the legislative and executive domains and were beyond the scope of adjudication in a writ proceeding. It emphasized the doctrine of judicial restraint and the separation of powers, stating that courts may not legislate or formulate policy. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal, directing the High Court to dispose of the writ petition afresh within its limited jurisdiction.

Issues considered

The High Court may issue policy‑making or legislative directions in a writ petition under Art.226.
Whether the directions to create a separate investigative cadre and other administrative measures exceed the court's jurisdiction.
The scope of judicial restraint and separation of powers in the context of writ jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Subjects

judicial restraintseparation of powerswrit jurisdictionArticle 226legislative overreachpolicy directionspolice investigationexcise licenceadministrative law

Judgment

[2016] 12 S.C.R. 131

STATE OF- UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS A
v.
SUBHASH CHANDRA JAISWAL AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 11381 of2016)
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 B

[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
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
G
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
H
131
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2016112 s.c.R.

A 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
B
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
c 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
D 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
controversy was absolutely different but the High Court
F 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]
G
Raj Prakash v. State of U.P and Others Writ-C No.
40344 of 2011 by U. P. High Court; Su brata 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;
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SUBHASH CHANDRA 133
JAISWAL

Census Commissioner and others v. R. Krishnamurthy A
(2015) 2 SCC 796 : 2014 (11) SCR 463; Union of
Ind,ia and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992
Supp (1) SCC 323; Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy
and another v. State of A.P. (2006) 2 SCC 670 : 2006
(2) SCR 190; Suresh Seth v. Co1111111:, Indore Municipal
B
Corporation and others (2005) 13 SCC 287; Supreme
Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India
and another (1989) 4 SCC 187 : I '>89 (3) SCR 488;
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki and others
1992 Supp (1) sec 548 : 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 216;
Mano} Sharma v. State (2008) 16 SCC 1 : 2008 (14) c
SCR 539; State of U.P v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
(2011) 13 SCC 77 : 2011 (5) SCR 509; State of Uttar
Pradesh and others v. Anil Kumar Sharma and another
(2015) 6 SCC 716 : 2015 (7) SCR 166 - referred to.
Case Law Reference D
2014 (12) SCR573 referred to Para 12
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 27 referred to Para 13
2014 (11) SCR 463 referred to Para 14
1992 Supp (1) sec 323 referred to Para 18 E
2006 (2) SCR 190 referred to Para 19
(2005) 13 sec 281 referred to Para20
1989 (3) SCR 488 referred to Para 20
1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 216 referred to Para 20 F

2008 (14) SCR 539 referred to Para 21
2011 (5) SCR509 referred to Para 22
2015 (7) SCR 166 referred to Para 23
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11381
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature atAllahabad, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 634 of
2016.
H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r1016112 .s.c.R.

A Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Vibhu Tiwari, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
Charudatta Mahindrakar, Gururaj, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Ordinarily we would have been loath to entertain an appeal by
special leave challenging the interim order, but we are compelled to do
so in the instant case.· There is a singular reason for the same since the
High Court has travelled much beyond the /is to issue directions which,
c we are disposed to think, it could not have.
3. The factual matrix as unfolded is that the District Magistrate,
Allahabad and Raibareli granted excise licence to run country liquor
shops under U.P. Excise (Settlement of Licenses Retail Sale of Country
Liquor) Rules, 2002, license for foreign liquor under U.P. Excise
Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Foreign Liquor (excluding Beer
D
and Wine) Rules, 2001 and license for model shop under U.P. Excise
(Settlement of Licenses for Retail License for Model Shop of Foreign
Liquor) Rules, 2003. One of the eligibility conditions for grant oflicense
is that licensee and his family members must possess good moral
character and have no criminal background. As the facts would uncurtain,
E an FIR dated 6.2.2016 was lodged by the respondent No. I which gave
rise to Crime No. 0049of2016 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC at Police Station George Town, District Allahabad. It was alleged in
the FIR that Vinod KumarTripathi and his wife Asha Tripathi, respondent
nos. 2 and 3 respectively had committed fraud and forgery by opening
bank account in the name of the respondent no. I by affixing his
F
photograph, submitting his ID and had withdrawn amount by forging his
signature and deposited the security amount with District Excise Officer,
Allahabad. The endeavour was to highlight that the said respondents
had the criminal antecedents.
G 4. A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the competent authorities to take necessary action against
the opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 as they had violated various rules.
5. The High Court called for the case diary which showed that a
final report had been submitted by the Investigating Officer on 23.04.2016
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SUBHASH CHANDRA 135
JAISWAL [D1PAK MISRA, J.]

in the office of the Circle Officer, Colonelganj, Allahabad and observed A
that no attempt had been made by the investigating officer to find out
whether the signatures alleged to have been made by the respondent
no. l for the purpose of opening the account were actually made by him
or not. The Court also took note of the stand of the bank and observed
that if signatures are forged and the informant-respondent no. I was not
B
present at the time of opening of the account, role of bank officials
would also be dubious, suspicious and they may become co-accused.
6. After so observing, the High Court adverted to the methods of
investigation and expressed the view that no attempt was made by the
investigating officer to find out the genuineness of signature from the
hand-writing expert despite the fact that the informant-respondent no. I
c
had categorically challenged the signatures and no satisfactory reply
was given by him. The High Court cal led upon the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Allahabad and District Magistrate, Allahabad, who are in charge
of criminal administration to explain the obtaining scenario. The SSP,
Allahabad, appeared before the High Court and stated that there had D
been serious lapses by the investigating officer since appropriate and
necessary steps were not taken in the matter of investigation. The SSP
further stated that though some training was given to the Sub-Inspectors
and Inspectors to conduct investigation, yet most of the time, the said
officers remained busy carrying on other duties which resulted in getting
less time for investigation purposes. It was also stated by him that in E
Allahabad district about 250 officers were conducting investigation for
more than 11000 offences registered.
7. Noting the statement of the SSP, the High Court observed that
it depicts a very sorry state of affairs of maintenance of law and order in
the State and paints a grim picture in which State is functioning, ignoring F
one of the most important aspects of administration, i.e., public safety,
security and maintenance of law and order. It referred to the order
dated 14.10.2011 passed in \Vrit-C No. 40344of2011 titled Raj Prakash
v. State of U.P. and others, reproduced few passages from it and
thereafter stated thus:- G
"13. Police force is meant for protection of people. It's sole
aim and purpose is to maintain law and order by preventing
crime and if committed, to find out and book guilty person
so as to get them punished in accordance with law. There
is no other agency ·in the State except Police who has this
H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016l 12 S.C.R.

A statutory as well as constitutional obligation for protection
of people. But unfortunately, it is still living in colonial State
of affairs when Police used to be deployed against public
to crush their genuine rights and demands. Police, at that
time, reflected glorified image of ruling Colonial State: It
treated inhabitants of this country as slaves and that is why
B
always tried not to allow them to raise their voice against
Empire. For more than half a century, India has attained
it's independence and now is governed by the Constitution,
given by the people to itself so as to function, "for the
people", "by the people", "of the people" principle but Police
c has not mend it's ways.
14. Today people are frightened more with police than
criminals. There is virtually a lack of confidence with this
Uniformed Force. Judicial cognizance can be taken of
several heinous crimes being committed almost daily and
D many a times with the nexus of politicians/criminals
whereby common and innocent people are being made
target. Criminality on the part of police is highly dangerous
being a double edged weapon. When they commit crime,
they are themselves being investigating agency, naively
cover up the matter. The result is that the courts of law,
E ultimately, ordinarily fail to punish guilty, for want of proper
evidence for which the agency is responsible".
8. The Court further proceeded to reproduce para 20 of the order
in PIL No. 33084 of 2014 decided on 11 •h July, 2014 and other writ
petitions and observed thus:-
F
"18. Laxity, incapacity, inefficiency or lack of knowledge,
awareness or compete.nee in making investigation on the
part oflnvestigating Officers, who are appointed by State,
without ensuring their basic qualifications, whether they
meet requirement ofjob or not, is another major reason for
G superficial and shallow investigation which is aggravating
crimes. Criminals are not deterred due to lack of effective
policing on all aspects. The real burden is placed on judiciary
when offenders, who have committed the crime in broad
daylight and in presence of several persons, walk out free
H due to serious lapses on the part of investigating authorities
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SUBHASH CHANDRA 137
JAISWAL [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

and for their failure in collecting crucial evidence. Most of A
the time, crime scene is not taken care so as to prevent
contamination of evidence and by the time one realises, it is
too late in the day and becomes very difficult to collect
credible evidence, sufficient to book culprit for the offence
he has committed.
B
19. Situation is further worsened for want of effective
forensic investigation inasmuch as facilities for forensic test
and investigation are almost negligible in the State. We are
told that there are only two forensic labs in Agra and
Lucknow. Population of this State is now more than 20
crores and number of crimes registered every year is in c
lacs. The facts are self-speaking to show that there .is no
serious attempt, will and intention on the part of Executive
to provide competent investigating staff and effective
supporting mechanism including forensic test facilities and
this, ultimately, causes serious dent in either bringing a culprit D
to court or to prosecute successfully. Infrastructure, staff
and other requisite facilities for forensic investigation
available at district level is not a luxury but in the present
scenario, it is a necessity."
9. The High Court, as the impugned order reflects, proceeded to E
issue certain directions. They are reproduced below:-
"ln our view, time has come where State should be asked
to show its real sincerity required in the field not only for
effective registration of cognizable offences but also proper
and well studied investigation and effective prosecution to F
ensure appropriate punishment to guilty persons. Since, even
District level Officers, we find, are not competent enough
to take appropriate steps in this regard and nothing can be
done unless top authorities take steps, we direct Principal
Secretary (Home), U.P., Lucknow and Director General
of Police, U.P.,Lucknow to consider over following aspects G
and submit their reply through personal affidavits, by 16th
September, 2016:-
(i) Work of investigation of crime and prosecution be
separated from normal policing or prevention of crime
H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 12 S.C.R.

A and other works, by constituting separate specialized
cadre managed by officials well trained in respective
fields. These officials be given due status, designation
and appropriate perks and facilities so that State may,
attract deserving, talented and meritorious persons,
willing to work with all sincerity in respective wings.
B
Both these wings be separately headed by
independent officers of the level of Director General
so that one wing may not get influenced by another.
(ii) The prosecution wing after separation, should be
headed by an Officer of Secretary level, taken on
c deputation from Higher Judicial Services, so that it
may function independently and effectively.
(iii) Whether sanctioned strength of police for
maintaining law and order and normal police functions
including prevention of crime, investigation and
D prosecution is sufficient? If not, what is actual
requirement for the said purposes and why required
number of posts were/are not created by Government
so that problem oflaw and order in State is effectively
managed?
E (iv) What is actual number of sanctioned strength in
the respective fields of Police Department and what
is normal period of time taken for filling existing
vacancies?
(v) Whether any existing qualification or specific
F eligibility conditions are prescribed for appointing
Investigating Officer? If not, why such conditions
should not be prescribed considering the fact that in
these days, investigation process involves
multifaceted scientific, technical and advanced
G techniques requiring an efficient and welll:onversant
person to deal with all such techniques etc.
(vi) How many cases are pending for investigation
in the State, older than six months, and what is the
actual number of Investigating Officers available.
These figures shall be supplied in the form of a chart,
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SUBHASH CHANDRA 139
JAISWAL [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

district-wise. A
(vii) Why Forensic Labs with modern equipments
and sufficient staff be not established at every District
Headquarters. State should also provide adequate
staff looking to the size of District, general trend,
number of criminal cases reported every year and B
nature of cases, normally reported in that area and
maintain it regularly so that Investigating Officers
may be able to get Forensic test/ opinion/ report with
the utmost expeditiousness and as early as possible.
(viii) A report shall be submitted to this Court obtained c
from each and every Autopsy Centre as to what
facilities are available thereat, how many
Postmortem/ Autopsy they are conducting every day
and show preservation of body organs etc. is being
maintained. (The officers submitting report shall bear
in mind that veracity ofreport, whatever is submitted, D
may got cross-checked by CoU11 through Judicial
Officers and, therefore, there should be no attempt
to submit a casual and shallow report but it should be
true and complete report in all respect.)
In case affidavits, as above, are not' filed by date E
mentioned above, the two Officers namely, Principal
Secretary (Home), U.P., Lucknow and Director General
of Police, U.P., Lucknow shall appear before this Court on
next date."
I 0. On" a perusal of the aforesaid directions, we have no trace of F
doubt in our mind that the High Court in a case of the present nature
could not have issued such directions. In fact, as we perceive, some of
the directions are in the field of exclusive domain of the Legislature. It is
submitted by Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel for the
appellants that for giving effect to certain directions, provisions of the G
Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to
be amended. It is also urged by him that Union oflndia was not a party
before the High Court and hence, directions could not have been thought
of. He has also drawn our attention to certain State amendments.
I I. Having noted the aforesaid submissions, it is necessary to
H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 12 S.C.R.

A state that it is expected that 5he 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 elaborate, there cannot be general comments on the investigation
B
or for that matter, issuance of host of directions for constituting separate
specialized cadre managed by officials or to require an affidavit to be
filed whether sanctioned strength of police is adequate or not to maintain.
law and order or involvement ofjudicial officers or directions in the like
manner. To say the least, some of the directions issued are not permissible
c and all of them are totally unrelated to the case before the High Court.
We are constrained to say that the High Court should have been well
advised to restrict the adjudicatory process that pertained to the
controversy that was before it.
12. In this context, we may refer to certain authorities in the field.
D In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Unio11 of India and others 1 it has been
held that a Judge is to decide every dispute, in consonance with law.
One is not free to decide in consonance with his will, but must decide in
accord with law. It has been further held that the concept of a Judge
being an individual possessing power and authority, is but a delusion ..

E 13. In Gurtlev Kaur mu/ otlters v. Kaki mu/ others2 it has been
observed thus:-
"Judges must administer law according to the provisions of
law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative
intention in the process ofadjudication. Justice administered
F according to individual's whim, desire, inclination and notion
of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos."
14. In Census Commissioner mu/ otlters v. R. Krisl11um1urthy 3
the three-Judge Bench was compelled to observe as follows:-·
"No adjudicator or a Judge can conceive the idea that the
G sky is the limit or for that matter there is no barrier or fetters
in one's individual perception, for judicial vision should not
be allowed to be imprisoned and have the potentiality to
cover celestial zones. Be it ingeminated, refrain and restrain
1
(2014) s sec 470
2
t2007) 1 sec 546
H '(2015) 2 sec 796
STATE OF UTTJ\R PRADESH v. SUBHASH CHANDRA 141
JAISWAL [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

are the essential virtues in the arena of adjudication because A
they guard as sentinel so that virtuousness is constantly
sustained. Not for nothing, centuries back Francis Bacon"
had to say thus:
"Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more reverend
than plausible, and more advised than confident. Above all B
things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue .... Let
the Judges also remember that Solo1rion's throne was
supported by lions on bqth sides: let them be lions, but yet
lions under the throne."
15. In the said case, a passage from Frankfurter, J. 5 was c
reproduced which we think it apt to quote:-
"For the highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate
one's private personal pulls and one's private views to the
law of which we are all guardians-those impersonal
convictions that make a society a civilised community, and
0
D
not the victims of personal rule." ,
16, We have referred to the aforesaid authorities to sound a note
of caution as sometimes one comes across certain orders where directions
are issued which do not directly arise from the case. In the instant case,
as we notice, the controversy was absolutely different but the High Court E
has generalised it and issued the directions.
17. A Judge should not perceive a situation in a generalised manner.
He ought not to wear a pair of spectacles so that he can see what he
intends to see. There has to be a set of facts to express an opinion and
that too, within the parameters of law.
F
18. In this regard, another.aspect needs to be noted. We have
already stated that some of the directions are in the nature of legislation
or policy. In Union ofIndia mu/ another v. Deoki Nam/an Aggarwa/6
a three-Judge Bench has observed that the power to legislate has not
been conferred on the courts and, therefore, the court cannot add words
G
to a statute or read words into it which are not there.
4 Bacon, "Essays: Of Judicature in l The Works of Francis Bacon" (Montague, Basil,

Esq ed., Philadelphia: A Hart, late Carey & Hart. 1852), pp. 58-59.
' Frankfurter, Felix in Clark, Tom C., '"Mr Justice Frankfurter: •.-J Heritage for all Who
love the law'·". 51 ABAJ 330. p. 332 ( 1965)
6
1992Supp(l)SCC323 H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 12.S.C.R.

A 19. In Venwreddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and another v. State.
ofA.P. 7 the Court observed that the judges should not proclaim that they
are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an exhibition of judicial
valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin, which
separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed
or erased.
B
20. In this context, we may fruitfully refer to the authority in Sureslt
Seth v. Commr., I11dore Municipal Corponttion mu/ otlzers8 wherein
it has been held that the Court cannot issue any direction to the legislature
to make any particular kind of enactment because under the constitutional
scheme, Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power
c to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to
enact a particular piece of legislation. In Supreme Court Employees'
Welfare Associatio11 v. U11io11 ofl11dia a11d a11otlter9 it has been ruled
that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly,
when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of a
D subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature,
such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which it has
been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority. This
view has been reiterated in State of Jammu & Kasltmir v. A.R. Zakki
and otlters' 0 •
·'·

E 21. In this regard, the following passage from the authority in
Ma11oj Sltarma v. State'', would be relevant:-
"The doctrine of judicial restraint which has been
emphasised repeatedly by this Court e.g. in Aravali Golf
Club v. Chander Hass 1" and State of A.P. v. P. Laxmi
F Devi 13 restricts the power of the Court and does not permit
the Court to ordinarily encroach into the legislative or
executive domain. As observed by this Court in the above
decisions, there is a broad separation of powers in the
Constitution and it would not be proper for one organ of the
State to encroach into the domain of another organ."
G
'(2006) 2 sec 670
'(2005) 13 sec 287
'(1989) 4 sec 187
'"1992 Supp ( 1) sec 548
"(2008) 16 sec 1
" (2008J 1 sec 683
H " (2008J 4 sec no
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SUBHASH CHANDRA 143
JAlSWAL [DIPAK MlSRA, J.]

22. In State of U.P. v. Mahindra mu/ Mahindra Ltd. 1 ~, the Court A
observed:-
"Within our Constitution, we have specifically demarcated
the ambit of power and the boundaries of the three organs
of the society by laying down the principles of separation
. of powers, which is being adhered to for carrying out B
democratic functioning of the country. So far as the
legislation is concerned, the exclusive domain is with the
legislature. Subordinate legislations are framed by the
executive by exercising the delegated power conferred by
the statute, which is the rule-making power. The judiciary
has been vested with the power to interpret the aforesaid c
legislations and to give effect to them since the parameters
of the jurisdiction of both the organs are earmarked.
Ther!!fore, it is always appropriate for each of the organs
to function within its domain."
23. Some of the directions, as we perceive, are in the sphere of D
policy. A court cannot take steps for framing a policy. As is evincible,
the directions issued by the High Court and the queries made by it related
to various spheres which, we are constrained to think, the High Court
should not have gone into. It had a very limited !is before it. Be it stated,
the directions may definitely show some anxiety on the part of the learned E
Judges, but it is to be remembered that directions are not issued solely
out of concern. They have to be founded on certain legally justifiable
principles that have roots in the laws of the country. In this regard, we
may fruitfully refer to the following passage from St(l/e of Utt"r Pradesh
"nd oilier$. v. Anil Kum"r Sh"rma mu/ "notller 1·':-
F
"17. Quoting the observations in respect of policy-making
by Lawton, L.J. in Laker Airways 16 A.S. Anand, C.J., as
he then was, reiterated the principle that the "role of the
Judge is that of a referee. I can blow my judicial whistle
when the ball goes out of play; but when the game restarts
I must neither take part in it nor tell the players how to G
play". Anand, C.J. added:
1
'(2011) 13 sec 77·
1
'(201.5) 6 sec 716
1
'' Laker Airways Ltd. v. Deptt. of Trade, 1977 QB 643 : ( 1977) 2 WLR 234 : ( 1977) 2

All ER 182 (CA) H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 12 S.C.R.

A "The judicial whistle needs to be blown for a purpose and with
caution. It needs to be remembered that court cannot run the Government.
It has the duty of implementing the constitutional safeguards that protect
individual rights but they cannot push back the limits of the Constitution
to accommodate the challenged violation."
B 24. Be it noted, the said case also arose from the High Court of
Allahabad where sweeping directions were issued. Thus anlaysed, we
are of the convinced opinion that the. High Court has crossed the
boundaries of the controversy that was before it. The courts are required
to exercise the power of judicial review regard being had to the
controversy before it. There may be a laudable object in the mind but it
c must flow from the facts before it or there has to be a specific litigation
before it. Additionally, the High Court should have reminded itself that it
cannot enter into the domain where amendment to legislations and other
regulations are necessary. We are absolutely conscious that it is the duty
of the State Governmentto discharge its obligations in the matters relating
D 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 and we are sure, the State Government shall look into
E the aspects and endeavour to see that appropriate steps are taken to
maintain the law and order situation.
25. A few words by way of clarification. Though we have not
appreciated the opinion expressed and the directions issued by the High
Court as the opinions arc general in nature arid directions fall in the
.. F legislative domain and some of them are beyond the scope of the litigation,
yet we have observed certain aspects in the preceding paragraph. Our
observations made hereinabove are words of caution for the State and
we are sure that the State shall remain alive to its obligations.
26. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
G passed by the High Court is set aside. The High Court is requested to fix
a fresh date and dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.