* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 27th April, 2011
% Judgment Pronounced on: May 02, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2671/2011
HEMANT BABURAO PATIL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Ms.Bhanita
Patowary, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with
Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, Mr.Sandeep
Bajaj, Mr. Khalid Arshad,
Ms.Neha Rastogi, Advs. for
Respondents No. 1 to 4
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
DIPAK MISRA, CJ
The petitioner No.1, President of National Anti Corruption Public
Power, a registered association and an NGO and the association, the
petitioner No.2 herein, have preferred this public interest writ petition
with the following reliefs:
“(a) to pass a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction or order directing theWP(C) No.2671/2011 Page 1 of 6
respondents to drop and/or remove Sh. Anna Hazare,
as one of the members representing civil society in the
drafting committee of Jan Lokpal Bill.
(b) to pass a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction directing the
respondents to substitute Sh. Anna Hazare with some
other suitable member, who may be either any judge
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or ex-speaker
of Lok Sabha or any other suitable and qualified
person to represent the civil society in the drafting
committee of Jan Lokpal Bill; and
(c) to pass a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction thereby quashing
the resolution and notification dated 8.4.2011 issued
by Ministry of Law and Justice constituting a joint
drafting committee for the purpose of drafting the Jan
Lokpal Bill; and
(d) to pass such other appropriate order/orders, as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.”
2. It is averred in the petition that the respondent No.5 – Sh.Anna
Hazare is not suitable to be a member of the drafting committee which
has come into existence by virtue of the resolution dated 8.4.2011 issued
by the Ministry of Law and Justice.
3. The resolution reads as follows:
“MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
(Legislative Department)
RESOLUTION
New Delhi, the 8th April, 2011No.1(42)/2004-Leg-I. – The Government of India
hereby constitutes a Joint Drafting Committee to
prepare a draft of the Lok Pal Bill.
WP(C) No.2671/2011 Page 2 of 6
2. The Joint Drafting Committee shall consist of
five nominee Ministers of the Government of India
and five nominees of Shri Anna Hazare (including
himself).
3. The five nominee Ministers of the Government
of India are as under:-
(i) Shri Pranab Mukherjee,
Union Minister of Finance.
(ii) Shri P. Chidambaram,
Union Minister of Home Affairs.
(iii) Dr. M. Veerappa Moily
Union Minister of Law and Justice.
(iv) Shri Kapil Sibal,
Union Minister of Human Resources
Development and
Minister of Communication and Information
Technology.
(v) Shri Salman Khursheed,
Union Minister of Water Resources and
Minister of Minority Affairs
4. The five nominees of Shri Anna Hazare
(including himself) are as under:-
(i) Shri Anna Hazare,
At Post-Ralegan Siddhi,
Tal-Pamer,
Distt – Ahmednagar, Maharashtra.
(ii) Shri Justice N. Santosh Hegde
94A, 9th Cross, RMV Extension,
Sadashiv Nagar, Bangaluru – 80.
(iii) Shri Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate
B-16, Sector-14, Noida.
WP(C) No.2671/2011 Page 3 of 6
(iv) Shri Prashant Bhushan, Advocate
B-16, Sector-14, Noida.
(v) Shri Arvind Kejriwal,
Parivartan,
L403, Girnar, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad - 201010.
5. The Chairperson of the Joint Drafting
Committee shall be Shri Pranab Mukherjee.
6. The Co-Chairperson of the Joint Drafting
Committee shall be Shri Shanti Bhushan.
7. The Convener of the Joint Drafting Committee
shall be Dr. M. Veerappa Moily.
8. The Joint Drafting Committee shall commence
its work forthwith and evolve its own procedure to
prepare the proposed legislation.
9. The Joint Drafting Committee shall complete its
work latest by 30th June, 2011.
V.K. BHASIN, Secy.”
4. It is submitted by Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the respondent No.5, Sh. Anna Hazare,
is ineligible for being a member of the drafting committee as certain
allegations have been established by Commission of Enquiry appointed
by the Government of Maharashtra vide notification dated 1st September,
2003 in exercise of power under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952.
Be it noted, Justice P.B. Sawant, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of
WP(C) No.2671/2011 Page 4 of 6
India, appointed as the one man Commission to enquire into the
allegations and mal administration into matters as specified in the
notification against certain persons which included respondent No.5.
Learned senior counsel would submit that when the same have been
established by a Commission of Enquiry, the respondent No.5 should be
removed from the drafting committee and the reliefs prayed for by the
petitioners should be granted.
5. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General along
with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.1 to 4 submitted that the resolution passed by the Ministry of Law and
Justice is not justiciable in a Court of Law as scope of judicial review
could not extend to the pre-enactment stage. He has referred to various
provisions of the Constitution of India. The learned ASG would further
submit that it is not a public office and, hence, a writ of quo warranto
cannot be issued. It is the further submission of Mr. Chandhiok that it is
in the domain of the Executive to constitute such committees and when
there is no statutory provision and the said action does not violate any
constitutional mandate, this Court should not interfere.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is manifest that
members of the Committee do not hold public office and, hence, there
cannot be any eligibility criteria. Therefore, the concept of quo warranto
WP(C) No.2671/2011 Page 5 of 6
is not applicable. A drafting committee has been constituted which
pertains to a pre-enactment stage. We have our grave doubt whether the
same can be scrutinized while exercising the power of judicial review.
The Constitution casts an obligation on the part of the Court while
exercising power of judicial review to test the legislation in the
constitutional backdrop, but not at a stage when the drafting of a Bill is in
process. It is a resolution passed by the Ministry of Law and Justice for
drafting of a Bill. It can be treated as an internal matter of the Executive
and exclusively in the domain of Executive. The suitability of the
persons, we are disposed to think, cannot be a matter of judicial review,
more so in a matter of the present nature.
7. Resultantly, we do not perceive any public interest involved in this
writ petition and, accordingly, there is no need to call for any kind of
counter affidavit/return from the respondents. The writ petition does not
deserve to be entertained for the purpose of adjudication and,
accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 02, 2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J
pk
WP(C) No.2671/2011 Page 6 of 6