NEW DELHI: In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday thwarted an attempt to get a direction to the Centre to frame uniform religion and gender-neutral laws governing subjects such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and alimony by refusing to entertain a batch of petitions, saying it cannot direct Parliament to legislate.
"Uniform civil code is desirable but this is a legislative aspect. It cannot be decided on a writ petition," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench also comprising Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala.
"Entertaining this would mean directing enactment of law and mandamus cannot be issued to Parliament to enact a law. We see no reason to also ask it to be considered by law commission as it would aid in legislation," said a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala.
Disposing of a total of 16 petitions, including those filed by BJP leader Shazia Ilmi and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, the top court said, “After taking a considered view of the pleadings and submissions, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions under Article 32. The grant of relief in these proceedings necessitates a direction for the enactment of laws -- gender-neutral and religion-neutral legislation as the petitioner has described it."
Union Law Ministry last year while questioning the maintainability and seeking dismissal of the PIL’s had submitted before the Supreme Court that the court cannot direct Parliament to frame or enact any law.
"It is a settled position of law as has been held in the catena of judgments by this court under our constitutional scheme, Parliament exercises sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation. It is respectfully submitted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact particular legislation," the affidavit states.
It has further been added in the affidavit that this is a matter of policy for the elected representatives of the people to decide and no direction in this regard can be issued by the Court. It is for the legislature to enact or not to enact a piece of legislation.
The ministry also added that since the 21st Law Commission’s term ended, the 22nd Law Commission was constituted and that the subject matter will be placed before the 22nd Law Commission for consideration when the Chairman and members of the commission will be appointed.
The bench, however, allowed Upadhayay, the lead petitioner, to take the recourse available to him to seek the framing of such laws.