Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9996 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 480 of 2012]

Census Commissioner & Others ... Appellants

Versus

R. Krishnamurthy              ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The present  appeal  depicts  and,  in  a  way,  sculpts  the  

non-acceptance  of  conceptual  limitation  in  every  human  

sphere including  that  of  adjudication.   No adjudicator  or  a  

Judge can conceive the idea that the 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  are  the  essential  

virtues in the  arena of  adjudication because they  guard as

Page 2

sentinel so that virtuousness is constantly sustained.  Not for  

nothing,  centuries back Francis Bacon1 had to say thus:-  

“Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more  reverend  than  plausible,  and  more  advised  than  confident.  Above all things, integrity is their portion  and proper virtue......Let the judges also remember  that  Solomon’s  throne  was supported by  lions  on  both sides: let them be lions, but yet lions under the  throne.”

2. Almost  half  a  century back  Frankfurter,  J.2 sounded a  

note of caution:-

“For  the  Highest  exercise  of  judicial  duty  is  to  subordinate one’s personal pulls and one’s views to  the  law  of  which  we  are  all  guardians-those  impersonal  convictions  that  make  a  society  a  civilized community, and not the victims of personal  rule.”  

3. In this context, it is seemly to reproduce the warning of  

Benjamin  N.  Cardozo in  The  Nature  of  the  Judicial  process3  

which rings of poignant and inimitable expression:-  

“The Judge even when he is free, is still not wholly  free.  He is not to innovate at pleasure.  He is not a  knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own  ideal of  beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his  inspiration from consecrated principles.  He is not  to  yield  to  spasmodic  sentiment,  to  vague  and  unregulated  benevolence.   He  is  to  exercise  a  

1 BACON, Essays: Of Judicature in I The Works of Francis Bacon (Montague, Basil, Esq. ed., Philadelphia: A Hart,  late Carey & Hart, 1852), pp. 58-59.  2 FRANKFURTEER, Felix in Clark, Tom C., “ Mr. Justice Frankfurter: ‘A Heritage for all Who Love the Law’” 51  A.B.A.J. 330, 332 (1965) 3  Yale University Press 1921 Edn.,  Pg- 114

2

Page 3

discretion  informed  by  tradition,  methodized  by  analogy,  disciplined by system, and subordinated  to ‘the primordial necessity of order in social life’.”

4. In Tata  Cellular  V.  Union of  India  (1994)  6  SCC 651,  

while  dealing with the concept of  judicial  review, this  Court  

referred to a passage worded by Chief Justice Neely, which is  

as follows:-

‘I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a  judge  and  from  those  limitations  I  generalize  to  the  inherent limitations of all appellate courts reviewing rate  cases.   It  must  be  remembered  that  this  Court  sees  approximately 1262 cases a year with five judges.  I am  not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker,  stock broker, or systems management analyst.  It is the  height of folly to expect judges intelligently to review a  5000  page  record  addressing  the  intricacies  of  public  utility operation.’

5. The fundamental  intention of referring to the aforesaid  

statements may at  various times in the history of  law is to  

recapitulate  basic  principles  that  have  to  be  followed  by  a  

Judge, for certain sayings at times become necessitous to be  

told  and  re-narrated.   The  present  case  exposits  such  a  

situation, a sad one.   

6. The chronology has its own relevance in the instant case.  

One Dr. E. Sayedah preferred W.P No. 25785 of 2005 in the  

High  Court  of  Madras  for  issue  of  a  writ  of  certiorari  for  

3

Page 4

quashment of the order passed by the Central Administrative  

Tribunal in O.A. No.3/2002 on the foundation that when there  

is  no  Scheduled  Tribe  population  in  the  Union  Territory  of  

Pondicherry  and  there  is  no  Presidential  notification  under  

Article 342 of the Constitution of India there cannot be any  

reservation  for  Scheduled  Tribe  in  the  said  Union  Territory  

and, therefore, the appointment of the applicant in the Original  

Application  who  was  appointed  solely  on  the  base  that  he  

belonged to Scheduled Tribe was illegal.   However,  the High  

Court declined to interfere with the appointment considering  

the length of service but observed that the appointee was not  

entitled for any reservation in promotion.  The High Court also  

recorded  certain  other  conclusions  which  are  really  not  

relevant  for  the  present  purpose.   The  direction  that  really  

propelled the problem is as follows:-  

“When it is the position that after 1931, there had  never  been  any  caste-wise  enumeration  or  tabulation and when there can not be any dispute  that  there  is  increase  in  the  population  of  SC/ST/OBC manifold after 1931, the percentage of  reservation fixed on the basis of population in the  year 1931 has to be proportionately  increased, by  conducting caste-wise census by the Government in  the  interest  of  the  weaker  sections  of  the  society.  We  direct  the  Census  Department  of  the  Government  of  India  to  take  all  such  measures  towards  conducting  the  caste-wise  census  in  the  

4

Page 5

country at the earliest and in a time bound manner,  so as to achieve the goal of social justice in its true  sense, which is the need of the hour.”

7. At this juncture, to continue the chronology,  it  is  

pertinent  to  mention  that  a  Writ  Petition  No.  

21172/2009  was  filed  before  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Madras,  which  was  disposed  of  on  

21.1.2010.  While disposing of the writ petition, the High  

Court had directed as follows:

“6. The second respondent, has filed a counter  and in paragraph 5 thereof, it is stated that the  second  respondent  have  taken  up  the  matter  with  the  Ministry  of  Social  Justice  and  Empowerment,  as  the  issues  relating  to  SCs,  STs and OBCs; are within the domain of  that  Ministry.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents, on the instructions of the Regional  Director, Chennai from the office of the second  respondent, states that the petitioner will got a  reply from the respondents within eight weeks  from today.  We hope that the respondents will  consider  the  representation  of  the  petitioner  Association in all seriousness and send them an  appropriate reply.”

8. Be  it  stated,  the  Registrar  General  and  Census  

Commissioner  was the respondent no.2 therein.   After  

the  writ  petition  was  disposed  of,  the  representation  

preferred by Mr. K. Balu, President, Advocates Forum for  

5

Page 6

Social  Justice,  was  disposed  and  the  order  was  

communicated to the writ petitioner.  It reads as follows:-

“2. Caste-wise enumeration in the census has  been given up as a matter of policy from 1951  onwards.  In pursuance of this policy decision,  castes  other  than  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes have not been enumerated in  all the Censuses since 1951.  In Census 2011  also no question on enumeration of castes other  than  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  has been included.  As such, the first phase of  Census  2011  enumeration,  namely,  the  Houselisting  and  Housing  Census  is  commencing on the  1st of  April,  2010.     The  forms required for this phase of the Census has  already  been  printed  in  many  States  and  Instruction  Manuals  required  for  training  the  enumerators  has  also  been  finalized  and  printed.   The  second  phase  of  Census  2011,  namely,  Population Enumeration,  is  due to be  conducted in February 2011.  The data gathered  in the first phase (April to September 2010) is  linked to the data to be collected in February- March 2011.  Hence, enumerating castes other  than  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  will not be possible in that phase also.  As such,  it is not possible to include any question relating  to  the  enumeration  of  Castes  other  than  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the  Census of India 2011.

3. As  regards  the  policy  decision  whether  castes  other  than  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  should  be  enumerated,  the  manner in which such enumeration should be  done and by whom, the matter has been referred  to  the  nodal  Ministry,  i.e.  Ministry  of  Social  Justice and Empowerment.”

6

Page 7

9. At  this  juncture,  it  may  be  noticed  that  the  Writ  

Petition(C)  No.  132/2010 was filed before this Court by one  

Kishore Govind Kanhere Vidharbha and Another seeking the  

similar relief, which was disposed of on 13.09.2010 by passing  

the following order:

“Learned counsel for the petitioners states that  as  the  purpose  of  the  writ  petition  stands  worked  out,  he  would  like  to  withdraw  the  petition.   The  writ  petition  is,  accordingly,  dismissed as withdrawn.”

10. Presently, we shall proceed to state how the purpose of  

the  writ  petition  had  worked  out.   The  respondent,  R.  

Krishnamurthy had preferred Writ Petition(C) No. 10090/2010  

which stood disposed of by Division Bench by the impugned  

order.  As is manifest, the Division Bench has referred to its  

earlier decision passed in W.P.(C) No. 25785/2005 and after  

reproducing the paragraph from the said judgment, opined as  

follows:-

“Since  the  relief  sought  for  in  the  present  writ  petition  has  already  been  answered  in  the  affirmative by issuing a direction to the authorities  to take all measures towards conducting the caste- wise census in the country, we are of the considered  opinion  that  this  petition  is  also  entitled  to  be  allowed.  Accordingly,  this writ petition is allowed  on the same terms.”

7

Page 8

11. Criticizing the aforesaid direction, it is submitted by Mr.  

R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel that the High Court on the  

earlier  occasion had issued a  direction without  making the  

Census Commissioner as a party and further there was no  

justification for issuance of such a direction.  As far as the  

impugned order is concerned, it is urged by Mr. Suri that the  

direction  issued  by  the  Division  Bench  tantamounts  to  

interference in a policy decision as framed under Section 8 of  

the Census Act,  1940, (for  brevity ‘the Act’)  as amended in  

1993.  Learned senior counsel would contend that the policy  

stipulates  for  carrying  out  the  census  which  includes  

scheduled  castes  and  scheduled  tribes,  but  not  the  other  

castes.   He  would  urge  that  many  a  High  Court  have  

dismissed  similar  writ  petitions  and,  in  fact,  this  Court  in  

WP(C) No. 133/2009 have declined to interfere and the same  

was dismissed as withdrawn.  It is proponed by him the view  

expressed  by  the  High  Court  is  absolutely  vulnerable  and  

hence, deserved to be lancinated.

12. Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance  

on behalf of the respondent.

8

Page 9

13. To appreciate the submissions canvassed by the learned  

counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer to Section 8  

of the Act, which reads as follows: -  

“Section 8 – Asking of questions and obligation  to answer

(1) A  census  officer  may  ask  all  such  questions of all persons within the limits of the  local  area  for  which  he  is  appointed  as,  by  instructions issued in this behalf by the [Central  Government]  and  published  in  the  Official  Gazette, he may be directed to ask.

(2) Every  person  of  whom  any  question  is  asked  under  sub-section(1)  shall  be  legally  bound to answer such question to the best of  his knowledge or belief:

Provided that no person shall be bound to  state  the name of  any female member of  his  household,  and  no  woman  shall  be  bound to state the name of her husband or  deceased husband or of any other person  whose name she is forbidden by custom to  mention.”  

14. On  the  foundation  of  the  aforesaid  provision,  the  

competent authority of the Central Government, in exercise of  

the  power  conferred  by  sub-section(1)  of  section  8  of  the  

Census  Act,  had  issued  a  Notification  on  13.1.2000 which  

relates to instructions meant for Census Officers.  Clause 8 of  

the said Notification being relevant is reproduced below:

9

Page 10

“8. Information  relating  to  the  head  of  the  household (a) Name of the head of the household (b) Male – 1/Female – 2  (c) If  SC(Scheduled  Caste)  or  ST  (Scheduled  

Tribe)  or  Other?  SC(Scheduled  Caste)- 1/ST(Scheduled Tribe)-2/Other-3”

15. After  the  said  census  was  carried  out,  another  

Notification dated 25.2.2010 was issued.   Clause 10 of  the  

said Notification reads as follows:

“10.  If Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Others.

16. After the Notification in the year 2010 was issued, the  

Office  of  the  Registrar  General  and  Census  Commissioner  

issued the Instruction Manual for Houselisting and Housing  

Census.   In  Paragraph  1.2,  the  historical  background  has  

been stated.  It is as follows:

“Historical background of Indian Census  

1.2  The  Indian  Census  has  a  rich  tradition  and  enjoys the reputation of being one of the best in the  world. The first Census in India was conducted in  the  year  1872.  This  was  conducted  at  different  points of time in different parts of the country. In  1881  a  Census  was  taken  for  the  entire  country  simultaneously.  Since  then,  Census  has  been  conducted every ten years, without a break. Thus,  the Census of India 2011 will be the fifteenth in this  unbroken series since 1872 and the seventh after  independence. It is through the missionary zeal and  dedication of  Enumerators like you that  the great  historical  tradition  of  conducting  the  Census  

10

Page 11

uninterruptedly  has  been  maintained  in  spite  of  several  adversities  like  wars,  epidemics,  natural  calamities, political unrest, etc. Participation in the  Census  by  the  people  of  India  is  indeed  a  true  reflection of the national spirit of unity in diversity.”

17. Thereafter, the Instruction Manual provides for objectives  

of conducting a census.  We think it appropriate to reproduce  

the same:  

“1.3 India is a welfare State.  Since independence,  Five Year Plans, Annual Plans and various welfare  schemes have been launched for the benefit of the  common man. All these require information at the  grass root level. This information is provided by the  Census.

1.4 Have you ever  wondered how the number of  seats  in  Parliamentary/Assembly  Constituencies,  Panchayats and other local bodies are determined?  Similarly,  how  the  boundaries  of  such  constituencies are demarcated? Well the answer to  that  is  also  the  Census.  These  are  just  a  few  examples. Census provides information on a large  number  of  areas.  Thus,  you  are  not  merely  collecting information; you are actually a part of a  massive nation building activity.

1.5 The  Houselisting  and  Housing  Census  has  immense  utility  as  it  will  provide  comprehensive  data  on  the  conditions  of  human  settlements,  housing  deficit  and  consequently  the  housing  requirement to be taken care of in the formulation  of  housing  policies.  This  will  also  provide  a  wide  range of data on amenities and assets available to  the  households,  information  much  needed  by  various  departments  of  the  Union  and  State  Governments  and  other  non-Governmental  agencies for development and planning at the local  

11

Page 12

level  as well  as  the State  level.   This  would also  provide the base for Population Enumeration.  

1.6 Population  Enumeration  provides  valuable  information about the land and its people at a given  point of time.  It provides trends in the population  and  its  various  characteristics,  which  are  an  essential input for planning.  The Census data are  frequently required to develop sound policies and  programmes aimed at fostering the welfare of  the  country  and  its  people.   This  data  source  has  become  indispensable  for  effective  and  efficient  public administration besides serving the needs of  scholars,  businessmen,  industrialists,  planners  and electoral  authorities,  etc.   Therefore,  Census  has  become  a  regular  feature  in  progressive  counties, whatever be their size and political set up.  It  is  conducted  at  regular  intervals  for  fulfilling  well-defined  objectives.   One  of  the  essential  features  of  Population  Enumeration  is  that  each  person  is  enumerated  and  her/his  individual  particulars are collected at a well-defined point of  time.”  

18. From the aforesaid, it is graphically vivid that at no  

point  of  time,  the  Central  Government  had  issued  a  

Notification  to  have  a  census  conducted  on  the  caste  

basis.   What  is  reflectible  is  that  there  is  census  of  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but census is  

not  done in respect  of  other  castes or  on caste  basis.  

That  apart,  the  instructions  elaborately  spell  out  the  

necessity and the purpose.  It is reflectible of the concern  

pertaining  to  assimilation  of  certain  datas  that  would  

12

Page 13

help in nation-building, trends of population, availability  

of requisite inputs for planning and fostering the welfare  

of  the  country.   Be  it  noted,  the  Notifications  dated  

13.01.2000  and  25.02.2010  enumerate  collection  of  

many an information including household number, total  

number of  persons normally residing in the household  

(persons,  males,  females),  name  of  the  head  of  the  

household,  ownership  status  of  the  house,  number  of  

married couple(s) living in the household, main source of  

drinking  water,  availability  of  drinking  water  source,  

main source of lighting, latrine within the premises, type  

of  latrine  facility,  waster  water  outlet,  bathing  facility,  

kitchen,  fuel  used  for  cooking,  Radio/Transistor,  

Television, Computer/Laptop,  Telephone/Mobile phone,  

Bicycle,  Scooter/Motor  Cycle/  Moped,  Car/Jeep/Van,  

and availing  banking services,  etc.   Thus,  the  Central  

Government has framed a policy and the policy,  as is  

demonstrable,  covers  many  an  arena  keeping  in  view  

certain goals and objectives.   

19. As we evince from the sequence of events, the High  

Court in the earlier judgment had issued the direction  

13

Page 14

relating to carrying of census in a particular manner by  

adding  certain  facets  though  the  lis  was  absolutely  

different.   The appellant,  the real  aggrieved party,  was  

not  arrayed  as  a  party-respondent.   The  issue  was  

squarely raised in the subsequent writ petition where the  

Census Commissioner was a party and the earlier order  

was repeated.   There can be no shadow of doubt that  

earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was  

not  a  party  to  the  said  lis.   This  view  of  ours  gets  

fructified by the decision in  H.C. Kulwant Singh and  

others  V.  H.C.  Daya  Ram and others4 wherein  this  

Court,  after  referring  to  the  judgments  in  Khetrabasi  

Biswal V. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors.5, Udit Narain  

Singh  Malpaharia  V.  Board  of  Revenue6,  Prabodh  

Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.7 and  Tridip  

Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State of W.B. & Ors.8 has  

ruled thus:  

“..... if a person who is likely to suffer from the  order of the court and has not been impleaded  as a party has a right to ignore the said order as  

4 JT 2014 (8) SC 305 5 (2004) 1 SCC 317 6  AIR 1963 SC 786 7  (1984) 4 SCC 251 8  (2009) 1 SCC 768

14

Page 15

it has been passed in violation of the principles  of natural justice.”

20. The earlier decision being not a binding precedent,  

it  can  be  stated  with  certitude  that  the  impugned  

judgment has really compelled the appellant to question  

the defensibility of the same.    

21. The  centripodal  question  that  emanates  for  

consideration  is  whether  the  High  Court  could  have  

issued such a mandamus commanding the appellant to  

carry out a census in a particular manner.  The High  

Court has tried to inject the concept of social justice to  

fructify  its  direction.   It  is  evincible  that  the  said  

direction has been issued without any deliberation and  

being oblivious of the principle that the courts on very  

rare occasion,  in  exercise  of  powers  of  judicial  review,  

would interfere with a policy decision.  Interference with  

the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a  

policy  in  a  particular  manner  are  absolutely  different.  

The Act has conferred power on the Central Government  

to issue Notification regarding the manner in which the  

census  has  to  be  carried  out  and  the  Central  

15

Page 16

Government has issued Notifications, and the competent  

authority  has  issued  directions.   It  is  not  within  the  

domain of the Court to legislate.  The courts do interpret  

the  law  and  in  such  interpretation  certain  creative  

process is involved.  The courts have the jurisdiction to  

declare the law as unconstitutional.  That too, where it is  

called for.  The court may also fill up the gaps in certain  

spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or  

abeyance.  But, the courts are not to plunge into policy  

making  by  adding  something  to  the  policy  by  way  of  

issuing a writ of mandamus.  There the judicial restraint  

is  called  for  remembering  what  we have  stated in  the  

beginning.  The courts are required to understand the  

policy  decisions  framed  by  the  Executive.   If  a  policy  

decision or a Notification is arbitrary, it may invite the  

frown of Article 14 of the Constitution.  But when the  

Notification  was  not  under  assail  and  the  same  is  in  

consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how  

the High Court could issue directions as to the manner  

in which a census would be carried out by adding certain  

aspects.  It is, in fact, issuance of a direction for framing  

16

Page 17

a policy in a specific manner.  In this context, we may  

refer to a three-Judge Bench decision in Suresh Seth V.  

Commr.,  Indore  Municipal  Corporation9 wherein  a  

prayer was made before this Court to issue directions for  

appropriate  amendment  in  the  M.P.  Municipal  

Corporation Act, 1956 so that a person may be debarred  

from simultaneously holding two elected offices, namely,  

that of a Member of the Legislative Assembly and also of  

a Mayor of a Municipal Corporation.  Repelling the said  

submission, the Court held:

“In our opinion, this is a matter of policy for the  elected representatives of people to decide and  no direction in this regard can be issued by the  Court.  That apart this Court cannot issue any  direction  to  the  legislature  to  make  any  particular  kind  of  enactment.   Under  out  constitutional  scheme  Parliament  and  Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power  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 Assn. v. Union of India10 (SCC para 51)  it  has  been  held  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  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  

9 (2005) 13 SCC 287 10 (1989) 4 SCC 187

17

Page 18

legislative  authority.   This  view  has  been  reiterated in  state of J & K v A.R. Zakki11.  In  A.K. Roy v. Union of India12 it was held that no  mandamus  can  be  issued  to  enforce  an  Act  which has been passed by the legislature.”  

22. At this juncture, we may refer to certain authorities  

about  the  justification  in  interference  with  the  policy  

framed by the Government.  It needs no special emphasis  

to  state  that  interference  with  the  policy,  though  is  

permissible in law, yet the policy has to be scrutinized  

with ample circumspection.   In N.D. Jayal and Anr. V.   

Union of India & Ors.13, the Court has observed that in  

the  matters  of  policy,  when  the  Government  takes  a  

decision  bearing  in  mind  several  aspects,  the  Court  

should not interfere with the same.

23. In Narmada Bachao Andolan V. Union of India14,  

it has been held thus:

“It is now well settled that the courts, in  the  exercise  of  their  jurisdiction,  will  not  transgress  into  the  field  of  policy  decision.  Whether  to  have  an  infrastructural  project  or  not  and  what  is  the  type  of  project  to  be  undertaken and how it has to be executed, are  part of policy-making process and the courts are  ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so  undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to  

11 1992 Supp (1) SCC 548 12 (1982) 1 SCC 271 13 (2004) 9 SCC 362 14 (2000) 10 SCC 664

18

Page 19

see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law  is violated and people’s fundamental rights are  not  transgressed  upon  except  to  the  extent  permissible under the Constitution.”

24. In this context, it is fruitful to refer to the authority  

in  Rusom  Cavasiee  Cooper  V.  Union  of  India15,  

wherein it has been expressed thus:

“It  is  again not  for  this  Court  to  consider  the  relative merits of the different political theories  or economic policies...  This Court has the power  to strike down a law on the ground of want of  authority,  but the Court will  not sit  in appeal  over the policy of Parliament in enacting a law”.  

25. In  Premium Granites V. State of Tamil Nadu16,  

while dealing with the power of the courts in interfering  

with the policy decision, the Court has ruled that it is not  

the  domain of  the  court  to  embark  upon unchartered  

ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to  

whether  a  particular  public  policy  is  wise  or  a  better  

public policy could be evolved. Such exercise must be left  

to  the  discretion  of  the  executive  and  legislative  

authorities as the case may be. The court is called upon  

to consider the validity of  a public policy only when a  

15  (1970) 1 SCC 248 16  (1994) 2 SCC 691

19

Page 20

challenge  is  made  that  such  policy  decision  infringes  

fundamental  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of  

India or any other statutory right.

26. In M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. V. State of M.P.   

& Ors.17, a two-Judge Bench opined that:

“..........  The  executive  authority  of  the  State  must  be  held  to  be  within  its  competence  to  frame  a  policy  for  the  administration  of  the  State.  Unless  the  policy  framed  is  absolutely  capricious  and,  not  being  informed  by  any  reason  whatsoever,  can  be  clearly  held  to  be  arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the  executive functionaries thereby offending Article  14  of  the  Constitution  or  such  policy  offends  other  constitutional  provisions  or  comes  into  conflict with any statutory provision, the Court  cannot  and  should  not  outstep  its  limit  and  tinker with the policy decision of the executive  functionary of the State.”

27. In State of M.P. V. Narmada Bachao Andolan &  

Anr.18, after referring to the  State of Punjab V.  Ram  

Lubhaya Bagga19, the Court ruled thus:

“The Court cannot strike down a policy decision  taken by the Government merely because it feels  that another decision would have been fairer or  more scientific or logical or wiser. The wisdom  and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not  amenable to judicial review unless the policies   are  contrary  to  statutory  or  constitutional  

17  (1997) 7 SCC 592 18  (2011) 7 SCC 639 19  (1998) 4 SCC 117

20

Page 21

provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse  of  power.  (See  Ram  Singh  Vijay  Pal  Singh v.  State  of  U.P.20,  Villianur  Iyarkkai  Padukappu  Maiyam v. Union of India21 and State of Kerala v.  Peoples Union for Civil Liberties22.)”

28. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear  

as noon day that it is not within the domain of the courts  

to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular  

public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better  

policy could be evolved.  The court can only interfere if  

the  policy  framed  is  absolutely  capricious  or  not  

informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse  

dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the  

Constitution.    In certain matters,  as often said, there  

can  be  opinions  and  opinions  but  the  Court  is  not  

expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion.

29. As has been stated earlier, the Central Government  

had  issued  a  Notification  prescribing  the  series  of  

informations to be collected during the census.  It covers  

many  areas.   It  includes  information  relating  to  

Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes  and does  not  

refer  to  any  other  caste.   In  such  a  situation,  it  is  20 (2007) 6 SCC 44 21 (2009) 7 SCC 561 22 (2009) 8 SCC 46

21

Page 22

extremely difficult to visualize that  the High Court,  on  

the first occasion, without having a lis before it in that  

regard, could even have thought of issuing a command to  

the  Census  Department  to  take  all  such  measures  

towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country  

so that the social justice in its true sense, which is the  

need of the hour, could be achieved.  This, irrefragably,  

is against the power conferred on the court.  The High  

Court had not only travelled beyond the lis in the first  

round of litigation, but had really yielded to some kind of  

emotional  perspective,  possibly paving the adventurous  

path to  innovate.   It  is  legally  impermissible.   On the  

second occasion, where the controversy squarely arose,  

the High Court did not confine to the restrictions put on  

the  jurisdiction  and  further  without  any  kind  of  

deliberation, repeated the earlier direction.  The order is  

exceptionally  cryptical.   That  apart,  it  is  legally  wholly  

unsustainable.  The High Court, to say the least, had no  

justification  to  pave  such  a  path  and  we  have  no  

hesitation  in  treating  the  said  path  as  a  colossal  

22

Page 23

transgression of power of judicial review, and that makes  

the order sensitively susceptible.   

30. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgments  

and orders dated 24.10.2008 and 12.5.2010 passed in  

W.P.(C)  No.  25785/2005 and W.P.(C)  No.  10090/2010  

respectively are set aside.  There shall be no order as to  

costs.  

........................J. (DIPAK MISRA)

........................................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

      ................................J.        (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 07, 2014

23