On Friday(10th May), Bombay High Court clarifies it lacks authority to enforce a legislator’s statement in Assembly, amidst a PIL seeking mandamus against state officials, including Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: On Friday(10th May), The Bombay High Court has made it clear that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to enforce a statement made by a legislator on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. The court’s observations came during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a petitioner seeking a mandamus against various state authorities, including Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
The petitioner had sought orders to ensure the execution of a statement made by Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Ravindra Waikar in 2018. The statement called for a Crime Investigation Department enquiry against former IAS officer Vishwas Patil. The petitioner argued that the assurances given on the floor of the house should be upheld and that the investigation should be assigned to a premier investigation agency.
However, Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, who presided over the bench, expressed their dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s arguments.
READ ALSO: EC Opposes DMK’s Writ Petition on EVM Design|| Madras HC
Chief Justice Upadhyaya criticized the petitioner, stating-
“Is this a writ petition or a political statement? This petition appears to contain material suitable for an essay rather than for legal proceedings. Such petitions will not be permitted in this court.”
The court made it clear that it cannot issue a mandamus for the execution of a statement made on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and refused to grant the prayers made by the petitioner.
Advocate SG Kudle, representing the petitioner, emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law. However, Chief Justice Upadhyaya responded by stating that the rule of law must be adhered to within the ‘four corners of law.’
Realizing the court’s stance, Kudle sought leave to withdraw the petition, which was granted by the court. While allowing the withdrawal, the court cautioned the petitioner and advised him to ensure that future petitions are supported by factual and legal grounds.
“Before we bring this to a close, it’s important to advise the petitioner to ensure that any future petitions, whether filed in this court or elsewhere, are comprehensive in providing both factual details and legal grounds, rather than being primarily political in nature. We trust and anticipate that the petitioner will abstain from such approaches in subsequent filings.”
– ordered the court.
This decision by the Bombay High Court clarifies its position on issuing a mandamus to enforce statements made on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. The court’s focus on the importance of presenting petitions with factual and legal grounds sets a precedent for future litigants.
Case Title:
Sherkhan Nazir Mohd. Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
