http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KANHAIYA LAL SETHIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/08/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                   THE 4TH OF AUGUST, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand                Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami Vijay Hansaria, and Sunil K. Jain, Advs. for M/s. Jain Hansaria & Co., Advs. for the Petitioners                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:                          O R D E R      In this writ Petition, filed by way of ’Public Interest Litigation’. the petitioners have Prayed as follows :-      (a)  Direct   respondent  No.1   (Union  of  India)  to      introduce an Official Bill in the Parliament to include      Rajasthani language  in  the  VIIIth  Schedule  to  the      constitution;   or to  sponsor a Private Member’s Bills      to be introduced on this subject;      Or, in the alternative:      strike  down   the   constitutional      (71st Amendment)  Act  of  1992  by      which Manipuri,  Konkani and Nepali      found their  places in  the  VIIIth      Schedule, to the constitution being      violative  of   one  of  the  basic      structures of the Constitution, viz      equality"      (b) pass  such order/order  or give      such direction/directions  as  your      Lordships may deem fit and proper.      To include  or not  to include a particular language in the VIIIth  Schedule  is  a  policy  matter  of  the  Union. Generally speaking,  the Courts do not, in exercise of their power of judicial review, interfere in policy matters of the State, unless  the policy  so formulated either violates the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory provision or is otherwise actuated  by mala  fides.   No such  infirmity  is present in the instant case.      The petitioner,  is not  vested  with  any  fundamental right to  compel  the  Union  of  India  to  bring  forth  a particular legislation  or to exercise its discretion in the Parliament in a particular manner.  It is, thus, not open to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the petitioner to seek a direction to the Union of India "to sponsor a  Private Member’s  Bill to  be introduced  on this subject".      Insofar as the challenge to the constitutional validity of the 71st Amendment Act of 1992 by which Manipuri, Konkani and  Nepali   were  included   in  the  VIIIth  Schedule  is concerned, we  fail  to  see  how  the  inclusion  of  those languages violates any "basic structure of the Constitution" as alleged  by the  petitioners.   The  challenge,  "in  the alternative", is without any merits.      This writ petition under Article 32 is misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.