No encroachment on public roads, even for religious reasons: High Court

In an earlier post of 2009 we had covered a direction passed by the Supreme Court to the effect that no construction of temples could be made on public roads. We had also covered in 2010 a decision of the Kerala High Court that there could not be any public meetings on roads as it creates inconvenience to public at large. It appears that there is no effect of such directions being passed on the common folk. In this post we are covering a decision of the Allahabad High Court which again emphasizes this point to hold that even for religious reasons there can be no encroachment on public roads. 

The case of Luvkuch v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Misc. Bench No. 13474/2016, decision dated 03.06.2016][AIR 2016 All 220] came up before the High Court on account of the complaint of local residents of the State against those "encroaching upon a public pathway by raising construction of a religious structure (Temple) and attempting to encroach upon the public land". They submitted that "people of this Country are basically simple and have faith in one or the other religion" and they are "normally soft whenever any religious activity is undertaken, even if it causes inconvenience of any kind to them". It was on account of this tendency of theirs, it was argued, that others took "advantage of such religious sentiments normally shown by majority of people" and such "scrupulous people do not hesitate in gross misuse by proceeding to encroach upon public land causing obstruction in smooth movement of public." Their argument was noted by the High Court in the following terms;

"3. ... Many a times, we have seen that in the garb of constructing religious structures, like Temple, Mazar, Samadhi, Mosque, Gurudwara, Church etc., public roads (including highways), streets, pathways etc. are encroached upon, obstructing or creating hindrance in smooth movement of public including vehicular traffic and once such structure is raised, due to fear of adverse consequences, people normally avoid to complain, and used to adjust such misuse. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that authorities in power, who under the statute, are responsible to prevent such encroachment and illegal constructions also play soft and do not take or hesitate in taking action for preventing such activities and this is causing mushroom growth of such structures by encroaching upon public roads (including highways), streets, pathways etc. ..."

The Government lawyer accepted that "such encroachment and illegal constructions, neither in law nor otherwise can be allowed" but also submitted that it was "looking to religious sentiments of people" that "authorities find it difficult to take actual action." Taking note of the position, the High Court passed the following order;

"6. There is no fundamental or legal right to encroach upon a public road (including highway), street etc. and raise construction of any kind thereon. These unauthorised and illegal activities cause hindrance and interruption in free flow and movement of traffic including foot walkers. Every citizen has a fundamental right of movement and this cannot be allowed to be infringed by a few violators in public and apathy of State authorities. In our view, those who create such obstructions as also those who perpetuate it by taking care/ managing such structures and also those who fail to take any action in law, all deserve to be taken to task and make responsible and accountable for their respective misdeeds.

7. Looking to the wider perspective of the issue and widespread tendency of such encroachment in the name of religion, faith, sect etc., we find that the State Government and Officials must be asked to act and show response in an effective manner."

In this background the High Court passed the following directions to all State authorities;

(i) State of U.P. through Chief Secretary, U.P. is directed to issue a general direction to all Collectors and Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police including the Officers responsible for maintenance of roads including highways) in State of U.P. to ensure that no religious structure in any form, whatsoever, shall be allowed / permitted to be raised on public road (including highways), street, pathway, lane etc. including sideways which is part and parcel of road (including highways) etc. and belong to State.

(ii) If any such structure is existing and has been raised in the last five years, to be more precise on and after 01.01.2011, the same shall be removed forthwith and a compliance report shall be submitted by Collectors etc. of concerned Districts to Principal Secretary/Secretary of concerned department, who shall submit a comprehensive report to the Chief Secretary within next two months.

(iii) If any such religious structure has been raised encroaching upon public road (including highways), street, lane etc., as stated above, before 01.01.2011, a Scheme shall be worked out and executed to shift the same to a private land offered by beneficiaries of such religious structures or persons responsible for its management or to remove it, within six months and a compliance report shall be submitted in the manner as said above in Direction No. (ii). 

(iv) On and after 10.06.2016, it shall be the responsibility of all Deputy Collectors/ Collectors in respective Sub-divisions and District as also Circle Officers and Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police of concerned District including the Officers responsible for maintenance of roads (including highways) that no encroachment is made, by raising religious structures, by whatever name it is called, belong to any religion, creed, caste, sect, section etc., on public roads (including highways), streets, pathways, sideways, lanes etc. and if any deviation or disobedience is found, these Officers shall be personally responsible. This disobedience shall also be treated a deliberate and intentional disobedience to lower down authority of Court and would amount to criminal contempt.

(v) State Government is also directed to make out a plan so as to ensure that public roads (including highways), streets, pathways, sideways, lanes etc. are not obstructed creating hindrance in the smooth flow of traffic/movement of public on such roads (including highways) due to observance of religious activities and such activities are performed strictly at the places identified for the same or belong to concerned religious sections or at private place.

(vi) In the present case, District Magistrate is directed to take immediate steps and take appropriate action within two weeks.

While indeed the High Court has passed the directions calling upon the authorities to take action, one cannot rule out with certainty that such actions will not be repeated again. Land grabbing, albeit in the name of religion, is a common affair in the country and it will definitely take more than a mandamus to the authorities to act. The common folks must realise the importance of the issue and then only some improvement can be expected.

Tax also a part of discount given by seller: National Consumer Commission

In its decision in Aero Club (Woodland) versus Rakesh Sharma [Revision Petition No. 3477/2016, order dated 04.01.2017] the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [decision courtesy www.livelaw.in] has directed that when a seller gives flat discount, that discount element also covers the tax part and the seller cannot charge additional tax over and above the discount. This can be understood by way of the example which is noted in the order;

"4. On 26.01.2016, the Complainant purchased a ‘GMT Men Jacket’ from Petitioner’s outlet. The MRP shown on the sticker was ₹3,995/-. After deducing ₹1,598/- as discount @40% and adding to the discounted price, VAT @ 5%, amounting to ₹119.85, the Complainant was asked to pay ₹2,517/- as cost for the said Jacket. Since the amount, so demanded, resulted in a discount less than “Flat” 40% of the stated MRP, the Complainant protested. His complaint was rejected by the Petitioner on the ground that as per the terms and conditions (T & C) of the SALE, VAT had been charged extra as per the instructions of the parent company. Realizing that by advertising at large that the items in the store were being offered at a “FLAT” 40% discount, which in the final analysis was much less, the Consumers were being duped by the Petitioner by adopting such unfair trade practice, alleging deficiency in service on its part, the Complainant filed the Complaint..."

In other words, the seller gave a flat discount of 40% as promised on the MRP. However after giving the discount, the seller charged tax on the discounted price. In the version of the buyer the discounted price should have included tax and tax could not have been charged after giving the discount as it was a 'flat 40% discount on MRP'. The seller refused and this led to the dispute. Accepting the version of the buyer, the Commission declared the practice of the seller as unfair.The legal position was set out by the Commission in the following terms;

13. Explanation to the clause, defining “bargaining price”, leaves little scope for doubt that the advertisement offering “FLAT* 40%’’ off on the select merchandise was the bargaining price within the meaning of clause (2) of Section 2 (r) of the Act. In our view, any person who sees the advertisement would reasonably understand that these items are being sold at “FLAT* 40%” discount. Although it is true that the word “FLAT” has an asterisk, appended to it, purporting to be a pointer to an annotation or footnote, but a bare comparison of the font size of “40%” and the font size of the corresponding terms and conditions mentioned in the footnote, clearly shows that the goods in question were not intended to be sold at a discount of FLAT 40%, the offered bargain price. ...

14. In our opinion, the advertisement in the above form is nothing but an allurement to gullible Consumers to buy the advertised merchandise at a cheaper bargain price, which itself was not intended to be the real “bargaining price” and, therefore, tantamounts to unfair trade practice, as found by both the Fora below. Significantly, under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, the “Maximum Retail Price” printed on the goods, a mandatory labelling requirement, at the relevant time, for pre-packaged goods, means “such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the goods.” In that view of the matter, having seen the word “FLAT” in the advertisement, a consumer would be tempted to buy the goods under a bonafide belief that he would get a flat 40% off on the MRP. In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40%” on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act.

This implies that when a seller gives a flat discount, the seller cannot charge additional tax above the discount. Such charge of additional tax would be a punishable act under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the National Commission order declares.

Parliament can condemn citizens without giving them opportunity to defend: Supreme Court

Can the Parliament pass a resolution condemning a former judge of the Supreme Court? Can the Parliament condemn a person without offering an opportunity to such a person to defend its views for which he is condemned? Can the Parliament discuss the conduct of a ‘stranger’ which is not relevant for its functioning and pass a resolution on such conduct? These and many other interesting questions touching various aspects of Parliamentary functioning came up for determination before the Supreme Court recently.

Considering the writ petition filed by its former judge, the Supreme Court has in its recent judgment in Justice (Retd.) Markanday Katju versus Lok Labha and Another [Writ Petition(Civil) No. 504/2015, decision dated 16.12.2016] answered all the above questions in the affirmative. Opining that the ambit of Parliamentary activity is very wide and the members of the Parliament collectively enjoy the constitutional protection of “freedom of speech in parliament”, the Supreme Court has considered its earlier decisions on the subject of parliamentary privileges to reiterate the scope of Parliamentary powers under the Constitution. The impugned conduct of the former judge, on which the entire chain of events arose, was noted in the judgment in the following terms;

“2. On 10.03.2015, the petitioner, a former Judge of this Court published a post on his Facebook Page in respect of Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the Nation. The post was entitled “Gandhi – A British Agent” and stated that Mahatma Gandhi did great harm to India. On the same date, another post was published by the petitioner on his Facebook Page in respect of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose referring to him as an agent of Japanese fascism.”

This led both the houses of the Indian Parliament to pass separate resolutions condemning the former judge who viewed such resolutions as incorrect as being passed “without giving him any opportunity of hearing and that rules of Natural Justice required that he should have been given an opportunity of hearing”. This led to the filing of the petition in the Supreme Court wherein it was stated “that it does not seek any relief against any Member of Parliament individually but the Resolutions in question do not fulfill jurisdictional requirement, and that whether the statements are deplorable or condemnable can be judged only by bodies performing judicial function and cannot be decided by Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha.”

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional provisions relating to parliamentary functioning and the ambit of its privileges the conclude upon the legal position on the subject in the following terms;

21. The observations of this Court in the aforesaid cases make it clear that “freedom of speech in Parliament” is absolute and unfettered; that the freedom of speech so conferred is subject only to such of the provisions of the Constitution which relate to regulation of procedure in Parliament; that this is recognition of the fact that Members need to be free of all constraints of what they say in Parliament; that clause (2) of Article 105 puts negatively what clause (1) states affirmatively; that both clauses must be read together to determine their content; that a vote, whether cast by voice or gesture is an extension of speech or a substitute for speech; that what has protection under these sub-Articles is what has been said and a vote that has been cast; that the protection is broad, being “in respect of”; that if the impugned speech amounts to libel or becomes actionable or indictable under any provision of law, immunity has been conferred from any action in any Court; and that the Constitution makers attached so much importance to the absolute freedom in debates that they thought it necessary to confer complete immunity on the legislators from any action in any Court in respect of their speeches

…

24. In so far as debates or discussion in the Houses of Parliament are concerned, the only substantive restriction found in the Constitution is in Article 121 of the Constitution which specifically mandates that no discussion shall take place in Parliament in respect of the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties. Barring such provision under Article 121, the Constitution has placed no restriction on what can be debated or discussed in Parliament. It is completely left to the wisdom or discretion of the individual Houses and the presiding authorities in terms of the Rules of Procedure of each House. It is for this reason that this Court in Keshav Singh’s case (supra) observed that the “freedom of speech in Parliament” is subject only to such provisions of the Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament. Substantively, apart from Article 121, the Constitution itself places no restriction on the subject matter of discussion or debate.

25. The history of parliamentary privileges as found by this Court in the aforementioned cases shows that the privileges have been defined as the sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members inter alia, as against the prerogatives of the Crown and the authority of the ordinary courts of law, that the term privilege denotes certain fundamental rights of each House which are generally accepted as necessary for the exercise of its constitutional functions, and that the privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. The privileges are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members, and by each House for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. The expression “...… there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament…….” occurring in first clause of Article 105, is general in nature; not confined to individual members and is applicable to all discussions and debates in Parliament. Secondly, the fact that this privilege is available to strangers who publish under the authority of either House of Parliament under sub-Article (2) and to those who have a right to speak in, and otherwise take part in the proceedings of a House of Parliament or any Committee thereof, is sufficient to refute the argument that it is only an individual privilege of a member of the House. All privileges belong to the House, though some of them may also protect and shield individual members composing the house.”

Having concluded such, the Supreme Court thereafter dwelled upon the factual dimensions relating to the petition to opine that the cause therein was unsustainable in the following terms;

“32. The submission of the petitioner however is, when Parliament is claiming a privilege what is to be considered is whether the act in respect of which privilege is claimed, is fundamental to the functioning to the Parliament. It is submitted by the petitioner that the power available with the Houses to deal with a stranger is only in relation to such act of that stranger which interferes with the functioning of the House and since the remarks of the petitioner did not in any way impede or interfere with the proceedings of Parliament, it was not within the jurisdiction of any of the Houses to take notice of such remarks and pass the Resolutions in question.

…

34. If any action is sought to be initiated against any citizen, whether Member or Non-Member, either in exercise of contempt or breach of privilege, the law that has developed is that the action of such citizen must have interfered with fundamental functioning of the House so as to enable the House to initiate any proceedings against the citizen. The petitioner is right that in cases concerning breach of privilege or contempt such aspect whether the actions of the citizen had interfered with the functioning of the Houses, is crucial and fundamental. But in the present case no action for either breach of privilege or contempt was initiated or exercised. Chapter 20 of Lok Sabha Rules entitled Privileges and Rules 222 to 228 thereof deal with matters of privileges. Similarly Rules 187 to 203 of Rajya Sabha Rules deal with issues concerning privileges. If an action for breach of privilege was initiated, the enquiry would certainly be on the lines submitted by the petitioner, in that whether his remarks had in any way impeded or interfered with the functioning of the Houses.

35. We are however concerned in the present case with exercise of power in terms of Sub-clause (1) of Article 105 which guarantees ‘freedom of speech in Parliament’ as against the cases of the first kind mentioned in the present case is one under Article 105 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, without there being any layer of breach of privilege. The question therefore is whether while exercising such power under Article 105(1), is there any restriction on the scope and debate or discussion in Parliament and whether acts of a citizen, whether Member or Non-Member, could not be noticed or debated. As mentioned hereinabove, the only restriction in the Constitution as regards subject matter of any debate or discussion is to be found in Article 121 of the Constitution. It is axiomatic for the free functioning of Houses of Parliament or Legislatures of State that the representatives of people must be free to discuss and debate any issues or questions concerning general public interest. It is entirely left to the discretion of the Presiding Officer to permit discussion so long as it is within the confines of Rules of Procedure.

36. We now deal with the concerned Rules and the Resolutions in question. Rule 156 of Rajya Sabha Rules quoted hereinabove shows that a resolution could relate to a matter of general public interest and under Rule 155 a resolution could be in the form of a declaration of opinion by Rajya Sabha. Under Rule 157 certain conditions are specified, inter alia that the resolution shall not refer to the conduct or character of persons except in their official or public capacity. Rules 171, 172 and 173 of Lok Sabha Rules are also on similar lines. Resolution dated 11th March, 2015 passed by Rajya Sabha expressed “unequivocal condemnation of the recent remarks” of the petitioner against Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Similarly resolution dated 12th March, 2015 passed by Lok Sabha condemns the statement of the petitioner relating to Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The condemnation by both the Houses was of the opinion and remarks and did not refer to the conduct or character of the petitioner. These resolutions were purely in the form of declaration of opinion. Both the resolutions made reference to the offices held by the petitioner as a Judge of this Court and Chairman of the Press Council and show that both Houses were conscious of the fact that the remarks about Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were made not by an ordinary person but by one who had occupied high public office. In the context of such remarks from a person of the stature of the petitioner, which were put in public domain, if both Houses thought it fit to pass resolutions in the form of a declaration, it was certainly within their competence. The nature of remarks regarding Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose pertain to general public interest and as such the Houses were certainly within their jurisdiction to pass resolutions.

37. It is not as if any action was deliberately undertaken or sanction was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner in exercise of his right under Article 19(a) made certain statements concerning two famous personalities. We are not for a moment suggesting that he could not or sought not to have made those statements. He is entitled to his views and put those views in public domain for consumption of public in general. The response by both Houses of Parliament was also natural in that the Resolutions in question dealt with his statements in public domain. All that the resolutions did was to condemn his remarks and did not refer to the conduct or character of the petitioner. As stated earlier, the remarks made by the petitioner regarding Mahatama Gandhi and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which were in public domain, were touching subject of general public interest and as such could well be discussed in the Houses. The learned Attorney General is right in submitting that the resolutions had no civil consequences in so far as the conduct and character of the petitioner is concerned. Unlike all the cases referred to herein above which visited upon the concerned individual certain civil consequences, the present resolutions do not inflict any penalty or visit the petitioner with any civil consequences.

…

39. According to the petitioner, a stranger who makes a speech outside the House, not connected with the functioning of the Parliament and not derogatory to Parliament, could not be taken notice of by Parliament to punish him. The power to punish a stranger, if his acts in any way impede or interfere with functioning of Parliament, will certainly entitle Parliament to initiate action for breach of privilege or in contempt. Such limitation is definitely read into the exercise of power for breach of privilege or contempt. However, such limitation or restriction cannot be read in every debate. A pure and simple discussion or debate may touch upon or deal with a stranger.

As stated above, freedom of speech in Parliament is subject only to such of the provisions of the Constitution which relate to regulation of procedure in Parliament. No separate law is required to confer jurisdiction to deal with the opinions expressed by individuals and citizens during debates. If the nature of opinions expressed by such citizens or individuals pertain to matters of general public interest, it would certainly be within the powers of the House to have a discussion or debate concerning such opinions. So long as the debate or discussion is within the confines of the Rules, it will be expressly within the powers of the House to disapprove such opinions.

No restriction is placed by the Constitution or the Rules of Procedure and none can be read in any of the provisions. It is true that a citizen or an individual may find himself in a situation where he has no way to reply to the discussion or a resolution passed by the concerned House. The concerned individual or citizen may also find himself in a position where the resolution is passed without giving him any opportunity of hearing. This definitely is a matter of concern and has engaged attention of the concerned in some countries.”

Legal challenge to Demonetization - Supreme Court Constitution Bench to decide

Recently we had updated our readers with the decision of the Delhi High Court holding that restrictions on cash-withdrawal under demonetization policy were not illegal. A challenge to this decision and other legal points were before the Supreme Court last week. Opining that these were important constitutional issues and were required to be addressed by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, these challenges have been referred to such bench.

It is noteworthy that Article 145 of the Constitution of India postulates that the "minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution" shall be five. Accordingly such questions cannot be decided by benches of lesser judge composition. In its order in Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 906/2016, order dated 16.12.2016], a bench of three-judges of the Supreme Court has formulated nine questions which in its view are such substantial questions to be decided by the constitution bench. These are as under;

(i) Whether the notification dated 8th November 2016 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7,17,23,24,29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934;

(ii) Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300(A) of the Constitution;

(iii) Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution;

(iv) Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14,19 and 21;

(v) Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect?

(vi) In the event that Section 26(2) is held to permit demonetization, does it suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power thereby rendering it ultra vires the Constitution;

(vii) What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to fiscal and economic policy of the Government; 

(viii) Whether a petition by a political party on the issues raised is maintainable under Article 32; and

(ix) Whether District Co-operative Banks have been discriminated against by excluding them from accepting deposits and exchanging demonetized notes.

These questions have been referred as in view of these three judges these questions are of "general public importance" and there are "far reaching implications which the answers to the questions may have".

Further, noting that the interim order prayed by the parties i.e. to suspend the operation of the demonetization notifications, would amount to interfering with the executive policy of the Government, the Court declined to issue any interim directions. The Court, to arrive at this conclusion, duly noted the submission of the Government that "for the nature of decision taken by the Government - to unearth the black money or unaccounted money and to dry up the terror fund and defeat the attempt of circulation of large scale counterfeit currency, maintaining complete secrecy of such a decision was imperative."

The Supreme Court confined its observations to "commend to the Authorities to fulfill their commitment made in terms of the stated Notification permitting withdrawal of Rs.24,000/- per account holder of the Bank per week to the extent possible and review that decision periodically and take necessary corrective measures in that behalf."

The outcome of this challenge will be really interesting and can have, beyond the realm of these questions, far reaching implications on the flexibility and powers of the executive government to take action on issues affecting the society at large.

Security comes above prestige; High Court judges to be frisked at Airports: Supreme Court

Setting aside the directions issued by the High Court to the effect that the judges of the High Court cannot be personally frisked at the airport, the Supreme Court in its recent decision has observed that "matters of security are not issues of prestige" and "these are not matters of 'status'". The Supreme Court has also criticized the High Court for ignoring the self-imposed restraint which if "not maintained the court as an institution would invite a justifiable criticism of encroaching upon" the terrain of the executive wing. 

In its decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court [Civil Appeal No. 717/2006, decision dated 14.12.2016] the Supreme Court was concerned with challenge to correctness of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court wherein directions were issued to the Central Government to include Chief Justice and other judges of the High Court in no-frisking list at all airports of the country. It was pointed out by the High Court that "the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court travels often by air between Jodhpur and Jaipur in connection with his official duties and was being inconvenienced by not being exempted from pre-embarkation security checks". It was further observed by the High Court that "in view of the threat perception all VVIPs/VIPs should submit themselves to pre-embarkation security checks 'without exhibiting their egos' but if certain persons amongst them were to be exempted then all constitutional functionaries should be treated at par". 

Accordingly the High Court, holding that even High Court judges were constitutional functionaries, directed the Central Government to include them in the list of no-frisking list at airports. The Supreme Court, however, did not approve. Setting aside the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court made the following observations;

9 The High Court has evidently transgressed the ‘wise and self-imposed’ restraints (as they are described) on the power of judicial review by entertaining the writ petition and issuing these directions. The cause for invoking its jurisdiction suo moto was a news report in regard to a breach of security at Sanganer airport. Matters of security ought to be determined by authorities of the government vested with the duty and obligation to do so. Gathering of intelligence information, formulation of policies of security, deciding on steps to be taken to meet threats originating both internally and externally are matters on which courts singularly lack expertise. The breach of security at Sanganer airport undoubtedly was an issue of serious concern and would have been carefully investigated both in terms of prosecuting the offender and by revisiting the reasons for and implications of a security lapse of this nature. This exercise was for the authorities to carry out. It was not for the Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review to suggest a policy which it considered fit. The formulation of suggestions by the High Court for framing a National Security Policy travelled far beyond the legitimate domain of judicial review. Formulation of such a policy is based on information and inputs which are not available to the court. The court is not an expert in such matters. Judicial review is concerned with the legality of executive action and the court can interfere only where there is a breach of law or a violation of the Constitution. 

10. A suo moto exercise of the nature embarked upon by the High Court encroaches upon the domain of the executive. In a democracy based on the rule of law, government is accountable to the legislature and, through it, to the people. The powers under Article 226 are wide – wide enough to reach out to injustice wherever it may originate. These powers have been construed liberally and have been applied expansively where human rights have been violated. But, the notion of injustice is relatable to justice under the law. Justice should not be made to depend upon the individual perception of a decision maker on where a balance or solution should lie. Judges are expected to apply standards which are objective and well defined by law and founded upon constitutional principle. When they do so, judges walk the path on a road well-travelled. When judicial creativity leads judges to roads less travelled, in search of justice, they have yet to remain firmly rooted in law and the Constitution. The distinction between what lies within and what lies outside the power of judicial review is necessary to preserve the sanctity of judicial power. Judicial power is respected and adhered to in a system based on the rule of law precisely for its nuanced and restrained exercise. If these restraints are not maintained the court as an institution would invite a justifiable criticism of encroaching upon a terrain on which it singularly lacks expertise and which is entrusted for governance to the legislative and executive arms of government. Judgments are enforced, above all, because of the belief which society and arms of governance of a democratic society hold in the sanctity of the judicial process. This sanctity is based on institutional prestige. Institutional authority is established over long years, by a steadfast commitment to a calibrated exercise of judicial power. Fear of consequences is one reason why citizens obey the law as well as judicial decisions. But there are far stronger reasons why they do so and the foundation for that must be carefully preserved. That is the rationale for the principle that judicial review is confined to cases where there is a breach of law or of the Constitution. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court is an example of a matter where the court should not have entered.  

11 By the time that the Rajasthan High Court dealt with the case, the list of exemptions had been modified to include Chief Justices of High Courts in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security. Even assuming that the intervention of the High Court in such a matter could have been invoked in the first place (though we believe it should not have been) the matter should have rested there. The cause for which the suo moto writ petition was registered was left behind and the episode which led to the invocation of the jurisdiction found no place in the ultimate directions. The direction to include judges of the High Court was unrelated to the very basis on which the jurisdiction under Article 226 was invoked. But that apart, there is a more fundamental reason why the case should not have been entertained and directions of this nature ought not to have been issued. Matters of security are not issues of prestige. They are not matters of ‘status’. The Union government has adopted the position that the issue as to whether pre-embarkation security exemptions should be granted does not depend only on the warrant of precedence. Among the factors which are borne in mind is that the person who is exempted from pre-embarkation security checks must, according to the government, be secured by such a level of government security on a 24x7 basis, which would virtually preclude the possibility of any prohibited or dangerous items being introduced on board an aircraft through his or her baggage. The security perception of the Union government is that no exemption can be granted to a dignitary if he/she is not under effective government security coverage on a 24x7 basis. Heads of foreign missions in India are exempted from pre-embarkation security checks on a reciprocal basis. We are not called upon to decide upon the legality or justification for the inclusion of the name of any particular individual in the list of exempted persons in these proceedings. What we have said above is to emphasise that the view of the Union government is based on a considered assessment of security perceptions and ought not to have been interfered with in the manner that the High Court did in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.