Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

SCR Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 262
Year/Volume: 2008/ Volume 6
Date of Judgment: 11 April 2008
Petitioner: COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY)
Disposal Nature: Petition Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2008 INSC 485
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju
Respondent: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Type: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) /580/2003
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Public Interest Litigation - Petitioner seeking directions to authorities for taking various traffic safety measures to control c occurrence of road accidents - Scope of - Held: Futile . directions to authorities as sought for by the petitioner amounts to legislative/executive action, which only the legislature/executive is competent to give - Judiciary cannot encroach into the domain of the legislature/executive - The Courts must exercise judicial restraint and must not perform executive! legislative functions - Article 21 of the Constitution must not be used by the Courts to justify every kind of direction/grant every kind of claim - Not only should the Court not to give such directions because that would violate the principles of separation of power but also because these are highly technical matters to be dealt with by the experts - Judiciary has its limits and can not solve all the problems - The country can ill-afford to be governed through court decrees - Moreover, adequate provisions available under Motor Vehicles Act for controlling the traffic and are obviously meant for road safety - Also there exists a Road Safety Council which has been suggesting measures for road safety - If further provisions are required, the petitioner may approach the legislature/executive - It is clarified that the Court can certainly not amend the law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21 - Judicial restraint - Exercise of.
Judicial activism - Legitimate/illegitimate - Held: Courts giving wider meaning to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, in the light of new developments in the country, amounts to legitimate exercise of power - However, Courts laying down new principles of law specifically reserved for the legislature amounts to illegitimate exercise of judicial power.
Adjudication - Held: It must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimisation of Judges preferences. 
Judicial activism - Scope of - Discussed . 
Doctrines:
 Doctrine of 'Separation of powers' - Applicability of.

2. Case referred
3. Act
      No Data Found!!!!!
4. Keyword
  • · Public Interest Litigation - Petitioner
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2008 AIR 2116 = 2008 (5) SCC 511 = 2008 (5) Suppl. SCC 511 = 2008 (4) JT 317 = 2008 (4) Suppl. JT 317 = 2008 (4) SCALE 848