NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL demanding immediate judicial intervention to frame laws protecting peacocks from fatal electrocution in the national capital. The bench observed that while the concern was noble, the court cannot become a legislative body.
The plea sought regulations to curb the increasing peacock deaths due to uninsulated electric poles and exposed overhead wires. However, the bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela firmly stated that empathy cannot override constitutional boundaries. “We may sympathise with your cause,” the Chief Justice said, “But the court is not a law-making authority. There is a system in place, and only when that system fails can judicial intervention be justified.”
The petitioner NGO had submitted that a formal representation was made on April 3 to the Delhi government’s Department of Forests & Wildlife, the Secretary of Power, and other concerned bodies. However, the high court questioned the haste in filing the PIL, asking how the petitioner could expect redress within six days of making the representation.
“There is no presumption in law that silence means inaction,” the court observed, reminding that remedies must first be sought through designated administrative channels. “Courts are not wielders of magic wands. We intervene only when the responsible authorities demonstrably fail.”
The petitioner’s counsel argued that in the absence of existing legislation or protocol, judicial guidelines were necessary. But the court rejected the plea, reiterating that the power to create laws lay with the legislature and not judiciary.
“If there is no law, go to the legislature,” the Chief Justice remarked. “What kind of argument is this? We cannot and will not legislate.”
Besides, counsel for various DISCOMs told the court that they had not received any representation from the petitioner, further weakening the case.
Yet, the bench provided a constructive path forward, allowing the petitioner to make a detailed representation to concerned authorities within two weeks. It directed that any such representation, once filed, must be duly considered and acted upon appropriately..