/2023 INSC 0701/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5049  OF 2023
(Arising out of   Special Leave Petition (C) No. 478 of 2022)
Union of India & Ors.                             … Appellants
v.
K. Pushpavanam & Ors.                             ... Respondents
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   takes   exception   to   the   judgment   and   order
dated  17 th
  August  2021  passed  by   the  High   Court  of  Madras
at   Madurai   Bench   in   a   writ   petition   filed   by   the   first
respondent.   A   petition   was   filed   by   the   first   respondent
seeking a writ of mandamus in the following terms:
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  1  of  112023 INSC 701

“…….Therefore   I   most   respectfully   pray
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
direct the Respondent No.1 to appoint the
Chairman and other members of the 22nd
Law   Commission   constituted   through   the
notification   in   number   F.   No.A­
45012/1/2018­Admn.   Ill   (LA)   dated
21.02.2020 in accordance with law within
the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. 
Therefore   I   most   respectfully   pray   that
this   Hon'ble   Court   may   be   pleased   to
issue writ of mandamus or any other Writ
or   direction   or   order   in   nature   of   writ,
directing   the   respondents,   to   propose   a
comprehensive   legislation   in   the   field   of
'Torts   and   State   Liability'   as   per   the
directions   of   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   of
India in "MCD V. Uphaar Tragedy Victims
Assn   (2011)   14   SCC   481”   and   “Vadadora
Municipal   Corporation   V.   Purshotam   v
Murjani and Others (2014) 16 SCC 14” in
accordance   with   law   within   the   lime
stipulated by this Hon'ble Court………..”
3. Before the writ petition filed by the first respondent was
taken up for final hearing, following queries were made by the
High Court to the respondents in the writ petition (appellants
herein).  The said queries read thus :­
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  2  of  11

“(a)   In   how   many   judgments,   the
Constitutional   Courts   have   recommended
for enactment of new laws or amendments
of the existing Acts, so far? 
(b)   How   many   orders   have   been   acted
upon   and   suitable   Acts/Rules   and
amendments   to   the   existing   Acts,   have
been done so far and what are all the new
Acts/Rules and the amendments made so
far?
(c)   How   many   judgments   are   being   acted
upon and suitable Acts/ Amendments are
in the process of enactment? 
(d)   When   will   the   Parliament   will   bring   a
comprehensive   suitable   legislation   in   the
field   of   'Torts   and   State   Liability'   for
violation   of   fundamental   rights   of   the
citizens   at   the   hands   of   the   State   and   its
officials? 
(e)   Whether   the   Central   and   State
Governments   are   having   appropriate
Wings to note down the judgments/orders
of   the   Constitutional   Courts,   wherein
suggestions   for   enacting   new   Acts   or
amendments have been enacted/proposed
or recommended? 
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  3  of  11

(f)   If   there   is   no   such   Wing,   when   such
Wing   will   be   established   to   bring   those
suggestions   to   the   higher­ups   or   policy
makers   to   act   upon   suggestions   given   by
Courts? 
(g)   When   does   the   Central   Government
appoint   Chairman   and   Members   of   22nd
Law Commission of India?”
4. After   hearing   the   parties,   by   the   impugned   judgment,
the Court issued the following directions: 
(1)   This   Court   directs   the   Government   to
consider   introducing   a   bill,   similar   to
which   has   been   introduced   in   the   year
1965 viz., "Liability in Tort" bill introduced
in   1965   and   re­introduced   1967   and   got
lapsed   due   to   dissolution   of   Parliament
during   1970,   taking   into   account   the
present   scenario,   within   a   period   of   six
months. 
(2)   There   shall   be   a   direction   to   the
Central   Government   to   take   a   decision
with   regard   to   the   suggestion   for   making
Law   Commission   either   as   a   statutory
body   or   constitutional   body   within   a
period of six months. 
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  4  of  11

(3)   The   Central   Government   shall   allot
more   funds   to   the   Law   Commission   for
research and more infrastructures to  Law
Commission of India at the earliest.
(4)   The   Respondents   shall   appoint   the
Chairman   and   Members   of   Law
Commission   of  India  within   three   months
from   the   date   of   receipt   of   a   copy   of   this
order,   failing   which   Respondents   1   &   3
shall appear before this Court. 
(5)   The   Respondents   shall   appoint   a
"Nodal   Officer",   who   is   well   qualified   in
law, in each department, to note down the
Courts'   recommendations   to   bring   to   the
knowledge   of   the   Policy­Makers   of   each
department   by   way   of   periodical   reports
within   a   period   of   six   months   from   the
date   of   receipt   of   copy   of   this   order,   so
that policy decision would be taken.”
SUBMISSIONS
5. Ms.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned   ASG   urged   in   support   of
the   Civil   Appeal   that   the   High   Court   has   issued   a   writ   of
mandamus   which   in   substance   directs   the   legislature   to
legislate   in   a   particular   manner.     Her   submission   is   that   a
writ   court   cannot   compel   the   Central   Government   to   take   a
decision   on   the   question   whether   the   Law   Commission
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  5  of  11

appointed   by   it   should   be   conferred   the   status   of   either   a
constitutional body or a legislative body.  She pointed out that
as   far   as   the   4 th
  direction   in   the   impugned   judgment   is
concerned, the 22 nd
 Law Commission has been constituted by
a notification dated 9 th
 November 2022 by appointing a retired
Chief   Justice   of   a   High   Court   as   the   Chairperson   and   other
members.   Learned   ASG   pointed   out   that   a   compliance
affidavit annexing a copy of the notification is filed on record.
6. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   first   respondent
submitted   that   in   fact,   the   first   direction   issued   by   the   High
Court   does   not   compel   the   legislature   to   legislate   on   the
subject   of   “Liability   in   Tort”.     It   only   directs   consideration   of
the prayer made by the first respondent to enact such a law.
Learned counsel further submitted that even the 2 nd
  direction
does not issue any writ of mandamus directing the legislature
to   legislate   in   a   particular   manner.   Learned   counsel   relying
upon   various   decisions   submitted   that   the   Constitutional
Courts   have   always   recommended   that   either   a   legislation
should   be   made   on   a   particular   subject   or   the   existing
legislation   should   be   amended.     The   power   of   the
Constitutional Court to make such recommendation has been
consistently exercised by this Court.   He gave illustrations in
the   form   of   several   reported   judgments   of   this   Court.   He
submitted that if nodal officers, as directed in the 5 th
 direction
are   appointed,   it   will   facilitate   the   Central   Government   to
effectively   consider   recommendations   made   by   the
Constitutional Courts on the issue of legislations.   Therefore,
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  6  of  11

the 5 th
  direction cannot be faulted with.   The learned counsel
submitted  that all   five  directions  issued  under  the  impugned
judgment   do   not   transgress   the   limits   on   exercise   of
jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   under   Article   226   of   the
Constitution   of   India.     He   pointed   out   that   according   to   the
appellants,   the   4 th
  direction   has   been   complied   with.     He
relied   upon   several   decisions   of   this   Court   in   support   of   his
submissions.
OUR VIEW
7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions.
The   first   respondent   urged   that   it   is   necessary   for   the
legislature   to   introduce   a   law   dealing   with   “Liability   in   Tort”.
On   the   basis   of   the   prayer   made   by   the   first   respondent,   a
direction   has   been   issued   to   the   Central   Government   to
consider of introducing of a bill on the subject, and outer limit
of six months has been fixed by the High Court.  
8. As far as the law of torts and liability thereunder of the
State is concerned, the law regarding the liability of the State
and individuals has been gradually evolved by Courts.   Some
aspects   of   it   find   place   in   statutes   already   in   force.     It   is   a
debatable   issue   whether   the   law   of   torts   and   especially
liabilities   under   the   law   of   torts   should   be   codified   by   a
legislation.   A   writ   court   cannot   direct   the   Government   to
consider   introducing   a   particular   bill   before   the   House   of
Legislature   within   a   time   frame.   Therefore,   the   first   direction
issued under the impugned judgment was unwarranted.
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  7  of  11

9. As regards the 2 nd
 direction, it must be remembered that
when   a   litigant   seeks   a   writ   of   mandamus,   he   must   show   a
right   existing   in   his   favour   and   the   corresponding   obligation
of the  State  to  ensure  that the  litigant is  able  to  exercise the
said   right.   There   is   no   right   vested   in   the   applicant   to   claim
that  the   Law  Commission   set  up   by   the   Central   Government
should   be   given   constitutional   or   statutory   status.     21   Law
Commissions have already functioned and submitted reports.
Whether Law Commission should be given a status under the
Constitution   or   under   a  Statute   is   a  major   policy   decision   to
be   taken   by   the   Central   Government.     It   is   only   the   Central
Government   which   can   take   a   call   on   this   issue.     Therefore,
the 2 nd
 direction was uncalled for. 
10. As  regards  the  3 rd
  direction,  the  prayer  was   pre­mature
as when the writ petition was filed, 22 nd
 Law Commission was
not even constituted.  Now, it has been constituted under the
notification   dated   9 th
  November   2022.     We   have   perused   the
notification dated 21 st
 February 2020 under which the Central
Government decided to constitute 22 nd
  Law Commission.   We
have carefully perused the terms of reference of the 22 nd
  Law
Commission.   The   terms   of   Reference   are   very   wide   which
expect   the   Law   Commission   to   make   recommendations   on
various   important   aspects   such   as   identification   of   obsolete
laws,   and   identification   of   laws   which   are   not   in   harmony
with   existing   climate   of   economic   liberalisation.     Another
function is to suggest amendments to the existing laws.   One
of the important functions is to examine the laws which affect
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  8  of  11

the   poor   and   to   carry   out   post­audit   for   socio­economic
legislations. Another duty entrusted to the Law Commission is
to  revise Central  Acts of general  importance so as to simplify
them   and   remove   anomalies,   ambiguities   and   inequities.
Clause 9 of the said notification provides that the Commission
may   develop   a   partnership   network   with   reputed   Law
Universities/Law   Schools   and   policy   research   institutions   in
the   country   and   abroad.   Clause   10   empowers   the
Commission   to   engage   consultants/legal   consultants   for
specific projects depending on the nature and urgency. There
cannot   be   any   doubt   that   if   such   vast   functions   are   to   be
discharged   by   the   22 nd
  Law   Commission,   it   will   require
adequate   monetary   support   in   the   form   of   grants.   Unless
adequate funds are provided, the Law Commission will not be
able to discharge its functions. As and when the requisition is
sent by the 22 nd
 Law Commission for requisitioning funds, the
Central   Government   will   have   to   consider   the   said   proposal
and   ensure   that   the   Law   Commission   does   not   become
ineffective   on   account   of   its   failure   to   sanction   adequate
funds.  
11. As   regards   the   5 th
  direction,   whether   a   nodal   officer
should  be  appointed  or  not,  is  a  matter  to  be  decided  by  the
Central   Government.   The   Court   cannot   compel   the   Central
Government to appoint a nodal officer.  All the departments of
the   Government   have   adequate   notice   of   the   judgments   of
Constitutional   Courts   in   which   recommendations   are   made
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  9  of  11

for   the   amendment   of   any   legislation.   Therefore,   the   5 th
direction is unwarranted.
12. The   law   regarding   power   of   the   writ   court   to   issue   a
mandate   to   the   legislature   to   legislate   is   well   settled.   No
Constitutional   Court   can   issue   a   writ   of   mandamus   to   a
legislature   to   enact   a   law   on   a   particular   subject   in   a
particular   manner.  The   Court  may,  at  the  highest,   record  its
opinion   or   recommendation   on   the   necessity   of   either
amending the existing law or coming out with a new law.  The
law   has   been   laid   down   in   this   behalf   in   several   decisions
including   a   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Supreme
Court   Employees’   Welfare   Association   v.   Union   of   India
& Anr. 1
    and   State of Jammu and Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki
and others 2
 The only exception is where the Court finds that
unless   a   rule   making   power   is   exercised,   the   legislation
cannot be effectively implemented.
13. In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   we   pass   the
following order :­
a. Directions   1,   2   and   5   are   quashed   and   set   aside.
However,   the   Central   Government   will   treat   the
said   directions   as   recommendations   made   by   the
Court;
1  (1989) 4 SCC 187
2  (1992) Supp (1) SCC 548
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  10  of  11

b. As   and   when   the   22 nd
  Law   Commission   submits
the   requisition   for   grant   of   funds,   the   Central
Government   will   consider   such   requisition   at   the
earliest   considering   the   importance   of   the   tasks
assigned   to   the   Law   Commission.     The   Central
Government   must   ensure   that   the   Law
Commission   does   not   become   ineffective   on
account of lack of funds; 
c. The   4 th
  direction   has   been   already   worked   out,   as
discussed above;
d. The   impugned   judgment  and   order   is   modified   on
above terms and the writ petition filed by the first
respondent stands disposed of accordingly; and   
e. Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.   There will be
no order as to costs. 
………………..…….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
..………………..…...J.   
(Sanjay Karol)
New Delhi;
August 11, 2023.
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.478 of 2022 Page  11  of  11