STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusA PARENT OF A STUDENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE, SIMLA & ORS

        616
A

                        STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH


B                                              v.

                        A PARENT OF A STUDENT OF
                       MEDICAL COLLEGE, SIMLA & ORS


c                                       April 11, 1985.


                      (P.N. BHAGWATJ, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND
                                 RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J

              Constitution of India 1950, Articles 32 and 226 P~b/ic Interest Litigation.
D
              Practice &: Procedure :

               Court1-Public Interest litigatian-Entertainment of-When arises.

              Lei/er treated as Writ Petition -Disclosure of identity Of petltioner-
        Necessity of.
E
               Legislation-Initiation of-Giving of directions by Court-Validity of.

              The Chief Justice of the High Court received a letter from the guardian of
         a student of the Medical College in Simla complaining about the ragging of
         freshers by senior students within as also outside the college c~mpus and the
F        hostel. The guardian of the student had annexed along with'. the said letter
         to the Chief Justice, a Ietter received by him from his son. The IDivision Bench
         of the High Court presided over by the Chief Justice treated ibese two letters
          as constituting the Memo of Writ Petition, but directed that these two letters
         should not be placed on the record of the proceeding in view Of the request
         made by the guar~ian that the identity of the writer should not, be disclos~d in
          the proceedings.
G
             The Division Bench rogistered the two letters as a Writ Petition, and issued
         notice to the State Government, anti the Principal of the Medical College, After
         hearing the respondents the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the
         practice of ragging was prevalent in the Medical Co11ege on a noticeable scale
         and that ragging took the form of subjecting freshers including female students
    H    to inhuman and hnmiliating treatment degenerating even :into physical violence
           eiMACllAL PRADESH v. APARENT OF s±ui>ilN'i:                                677
     and that the co11ege authorities had not been able to effectively control such ragg-    A
     ing. It' gave various dire.ctions which included a diretion to the State Govern-
     ment to constitute a [Committee-Allti-Ragging Committee-to go into the
     question and make recommendations in regard to the curative, preventive· and
     punitive measures to be adopted by the college authorites to control and curb
      the evil of ragging.

            Anti-Ragging Committee recommended that the State Government                     B
     could iuitiate legislation which 1nakesragging a cogniZable offence and prescfibe
     punishment commeosuratewith the crimes cJmrnitted.


            Whea the matter was taken up again for hearing the Division Bench
     directed the State Government to file an affidavit indicating th~ action taLen on
     the Report.       An affidavit to the effect that the State Government had
     'taken notice of the recommendations to initiate legi dation in this behalf if
                                                                  1
                                                                                             c
     found necessary and so advised," was filed on behatr of the State Government.
     The Division Bench further directed the State Government to initiate le&islation
     against ragQ:ing and for this pilrpose granted the State Government 6 weeks'
     time.

           In the appeal by the State, to this Court it was contended that the              D
     Court could not give directions to the State Government to initiate legislation
     on ragging.

            Allowing the Appeal.


             HELD. 1. The Division Bench was Clearly in error ici iSsuing a direction       E
      to the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit within 6 weeks setting out the action
     taken by the State Government with a view to implementing the Committee's
,.   recommendation. [684]


            2. The direction given by the Division Bench was really nothing short
     of an indirect attempt to compel the State Government to initiate legislation
     with a vrew to curbing the evil of ragging. [683C]                                     F


             3. It is entirely a matter for the executive branch of the Government·
     to decide whether or not to introduce any particular legislation. But the Court
     Certainly cannot mandate the executive or any member of the. legislature to
     initiate legislation, howspver necessary or desirable the Court may consider
     it to be. That is not a matter which is within the sphere of the fuoc-                 G
     tions and duties allocated to the judiciary under the Constitution. [683E-F]


             4. If the executive is not carrying out any duty laid upon it by the Consti-
     tution or the Jaw, the Court can certainly require the e.itecutive to carry out such
     duty.and this is precisely what the Court does when it entertains public interest
     litigation. [683F)                                                                     ff
    678                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [1985] 3 s.c.ll..

A           5. When the Court passes any orders in public interest litigation, the
     Court does so not with a view. to mocking at legislative or exeeutive authority
     or in a spirit of confrontation but with a view to enforcing the Constitution
     and the law, because it is vital for the maintenance of the rule of law that the
     obligations which are laid upon the excutive by the Constitutio1.1 and the law
     should be carried out faithfully and no one should go away with a feeling that
     the Constitution and the law are meant only for the benefit of a fortunate few
B    and have no meaning for the large number of half-clad half-huniry people of
     this country. [684B-CJ                                               ·


             6. It is now settled law that this Court under Article 32, arid the High
    Courts under Article 226, can treat a letter as a Writ Petition and take action
     upon it. It is not every letter which may be treated as a Writ Petition by the
c   Supreme Court or the High Court. It is only where a letter is ~ddressed by
    an aggrieved person or by a public spirited individual or a sociaJ,action group
    for. enforcement of the constitutional or legal rights of a persons who by reason
    of poverty, disability or socially or economicalJy disadvantaged position find
    it difficult to 8.pproach the court for redress that the Supreme Court or the High
    Court would be justified, nay bound, to treat the letter as a Writ Petition. The1e
    may also be cases where even a letter addressed for redressal of a wrong done
D   to an individual may be treated as a Writ Petition where the Supr¢me Court or
    the High Court considers it expedient to do so in interests of justice. This
    is an innovative strategy which has been. evolved by the Supreme Court." It
    is a highly effective weapon in the armoury of the Jaw for reaching social justice
    to the common man. [684G-H; 685A-CJ

         7. _The Division Bench was, certtainly right in entertaning the two letters as
E   a Writ Petition, but it was wholly in error in directing that these two letters on
    which the Division Bench acted should not be placed on the recor<;l of the pro·
    ceedings and the identity of the guardian and the student should no~ be disclosed.
    It would be contrary to all canons of fair play and violative of all~ principles of
    judicial propriety and administration to entertain a Writ Pet~tion without
    disclosing the identity of the petitioner. though the court, knoWs who the
    petitioner is. [685D-F]
F
            CIVIL APFELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1499 of
    1985.

         From the Judgment and order dated 18.9.84 of the High
    Court of Himachal Pradesh in C.W.P. No. 155/84.
G
            K. Parasaran, Attorney General. A.K. Ganguli and A.K. Cha-
            kravorty, for the Appellant.

            The Judgment of ihe Court was delivered by

H           BHAGWATI, J.     This appeal by special leave is directed against
     HIMACHAL PRADESH v. A PARENT OF STUDENT (Bhagwati, J.) 6'19

two orders made by a division Bench of the High Court of Himachal         A
Pradesh, one dated 24th July, !984 and the other dated 18 Septem·
 ber 1984, in so·far as they direct the Chief Secretary to the Govern·
 ment of Hlmachal Pradesh to file an affidavit ·setting ont what
 action has been taken by ·the State Government towards implemen-
 tation of the recommendation contained in paragraph 16 of the
Report of the Anti· Ragging Committee, The impugned orders are            B
in our opinion wholly unsustainable and ordinarily we would not
have taken time to deliver a reasoned judgment and merely set aside
the impugned orders with a brief observation, but we think it neces-
sary to state in some detail our opinion in regard to the directions
 given in the impugned orders, because we find that this is one of
 those few cases which demonstrates what we have often said before
                                                                          c
  that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with
  great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely
  careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance
  it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to
   the Executive and the legislature.                                     I)



       It appears that the Chief Justice of the High Court received a
letter dated 4th April, 1984, from the guardian of a student of
the Medical College in Shimla complaining about the ragging of
freshers by senior studen\9 within as also outside the college campus
                                                                          E
and the hostel. The guardian of the student had annexed along
with his letter to the Chief Justice_ a letter dated 25th March, 1984
received by him from his son. The Division Bench of the High
Court presided over by the Chief Justice treated these two letters as
constituting the Memo of Writ Petition but directed that these two
 letters should not be placed on the record of the proceedings in
                                                                          F
view of the request made in paragraph 6 of the letter of the guardian
that the identity of the writer should not be disclosed on account of
 fear of reprisal and for the self-same reason the Division Bench
 ordered that the identity of the student and the guardian should not
be disclosed in the proceedings. The Division Bench treating the
 two letters as a writ petition registered them as Civil Writ Petition    G
 No:l55 of 1984 and issued notice to the State Government, the
 Principal of the Medical College Simla, the Himacbal Pradesh Uni·
 venity and the Director of Health Services, Government of Hima-
 chal Pradesh who were arrayed as respondents Nos. 1 to 4. On
 receipt of the notice of the Writ Petition, the Government of
 Himachal Pradesh filed an affidavit setting out the steps which the      H
                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [IP8SJ 3 s.c.ll.

A   State Government and the college authorities had taken to check
    the ragging of freshers by senior students. The Director of Medical
    Education-cum-Principal of the Medical College, Simla also filed an
    affidavit opposing the admission of the Writ Petition on the ground
    that the college authorities had taken various steps for t.he purpose
    of curbing the evil of ragging and in fact had taken action on at-
B   least two occasions awarding punishment to the students who indul-
    ged in ragging by suspending them for a period of 4 to 6 months,
    The Division Bench, on a consideration of this material placed
    before it, came to the conclusion that the practice of ragging was
    prevailing in the Medical College, Simla on a noticeable scale and
    that ragging took the form of subjecting freshers including female
c   students to inhuman and humiliating treatment degenerating even
    into physical violence and tltat the college authorities had not been
    able to efiectively control ragging with the result that the college
     administration had lost confidence of a sizeable section of student,
     parents and well-wishers as regards its capacity to deal with the
D    problem of ragging. The Division Bench accordingly gave various
     directions which included a direction to the State Government to
     constitute a committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor of the
     Himachal Pradesh University and the Secretary to the dovernment,
     Health Department, inter-alia, to make "recommendations in re-
     gard to the curative, preventive and punitive measures to be adop-
E    ted by the college authorities to control and curb the evil of ragging
     and the machinery to be set up to enforce these measu.res." This
     Committee which we shall for the sake of convenienc~ refer to as
     the Anti-Ragging Committee, was to complete its work ~od submit
     its report within a period of six months from the date of its consti-
     tution.
F
      ''
          The Anti-Ragging Committee submitted its Report to the
    High Court on 26th June, 1984. The Report contained various
    recommendations intended to control and curb the ragging of fre-
G   shers by senior students in the Medical College and its hostel. We
    are concerned here with only one recommendation namely that
    contained in paragraph 16 of the Report which was in the following
     terms :


               "In quite a number of States in the country there are
H          Acts on ragging which make ragging a cognizable offence
                HiMACHAL PRADESH v. A PARENT OF STUDENT (Bhagwati, J) 681

                                                                                      A
                and prescribe the types of punishment commensurate with
                the crimes committed. The Himachal Pradesh Government
                could be suggested to initiate such a legislation as early as
                possible. Pending such a legislation by the State Govern-
                ment, the University authorities could think of incorpora-
                ting some provisions relating to ragging in the ·relevant             B
                ordinance of Discipline in the Ordinance of the Univer-
                sity."

                  The Division Bench by its order dated 24th July, 1984 gave
           directions for implementation of the various recommendations• made
           in the Report and so far as recommendation contained in paragraph
                                                                                      c
           16 of the Report was concerned; the Division Bench said·: "The
           Chief Secretary to the State Government will file an affidavit within
           a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the writ settmg
           out the action proposed to be taken on the recommendation con-
           tained in paragraph 16 (First Part) of the relevant pertion of the         D
           Report." Though this direction ostensibly did no.more than call
           upon the Chief Secretary to inform the Court a.s to what action the
           State Government proposed to take on the recommendations to .
           initiate legislation for curbing ragging, it was, in fact and substance,
           intended to require the State Government to initiate legislation on ·
           the subject. If this direction were merely an innocuous one inten-         E
           ded to inform the court whether the ·state Government intended to
           take any action on the recommendation to initiate legislation
           against ragging, no objection could pos~ibiy be taken .against it,
           because it would leave the Government free to decide whether or
           not to initiate legislation in regard to ragging without mandatorily
                                                                                      F
           requiring the State Government to do so' But as the subsequent
    .··~   event would show, what the Division Bench intended to achieve by
           giving this direction was not just to obtain information as to what
           the State Government proposed to do in the matter but to actually
           require the State Government to initiate legislation against ragging.
           That is why, when the Chief Secretary in deference to this direction
           filed an affidavit stating, inter-alia, that the State Government had      G
           "taken notice of the recommendation to initiate legislation in this
           behalf, if found necessary and so advised", .the Division Bench was
,          riot satisfied with this staiement of the Chief Secretary and declined
           to close the proceeding so far as this particular aspect was concer- ·
           ned and proceeded, inter-alia, to reiterate in its order dated J 8ih
           September 1984 ;                ·                                          H
     682             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1985) 3 S.C.R.
 A
                "The Chief Secretary to the State Government will file
           an affidavit within a perlod of 6 weeks from the date of
           receipt of the Writ setting out the further action taken in
           the direction of the implementation of the recommendation
           contained in paragraph 16 (First Part) of the relevant por-
 B         tion of the Report of the Anti-Ragging Committee:"


           When this direction was given by the Division Bench, it
     clearly implied that what the Division B;nch wanted the State
     Government to do was to initiate legislation against ragging and for
 c   this purpose, time of6 weeks was granted to the State Government.
     The State Government thereupon preferred the present :appeal with
     special leave obtained from this Court.


            We may point out, even at the cost of repetition, that the
     direction given by the Division Bench in its order dated 24th July
I)   1934 and reiterated in its order dated 18th September 1984 was
     not an innocuous direction issued merely for the purp:lSe of inform-
     ing the Court as to what the State Govornment proposed to do in
     regard to the recommendation in p1ragraph 16 of th,e Report to
     initiate legislation against ragging. The Division Bench, would have
     been certainly justified in enquiring from the Chief Secretary as to
E    what action the State Government proposed to take in regard to
     the recommendation of the Anti-Ragging Committee to initiate
     legislation on the subject of ragging. Such enquiry could have
     been legitimately made by the Division Bench for the. purpose of
     obtaining information on a m1tter which the Divisiqn Bench re-
     garded, and in our opinion rightly, as necessary for eradicating the
F    evil practice of ragging which is not only subversive of human
     dignity but also prejudicially affects the interests of the students
     and the discipline in the Campus and no exception could have been
     taken to it because it would have left the Stale Government free
     to decide whether or not to initiate any legislation on the subject
     and not mandatorily required the State Government to initiate
G    any such legislation. If such only were the purpose of the direc-
     tion issued by the Division Bench and the Division Bench did not
     intend anything more, the Division Bench would have closed the
     proceedings when the Chief Secretary intimated in his affidavit that
     the State Government would initiate legislation in this behalf "if
     found necessary and so advised". But despite this statement made by
ff
           HIMACHAL PRADESH v. A PARENT OF STUDENT (Bhagwali, J.)        683
                                                                                A
     the Chief Secretary on behalf of the State Government, the Division
     Bench persisted in reiterating its direction that the Chief Secretary
     should file an affidavit within a further· period of 6 weeks setting
     ont the further action taken by the State Government in the direction
     of implementation of the recommendation contained in paragraph
      16 of the Report. This persistence in reiterating the direction to        B
     file an affidavit setting out the action taken by the State Govern·
     ment towards implementation of the recommendation to initiate
     legislation against ragging, clearly shows that what the Division Bench
     intended was not merely to obtain information as to what action
      the State Government proposed to .take but to obligate the State
      Government to take action by way of initiation of legislation
                                                                                c
      against ragging. The direction given by the Divisio.n .Bench was really
      nothing short of an indirect attempt to comphel the State Government
      to initiate legislation with a view to curbing the evil of ragging, for
      otherwise it is difficult to see why, after the clear and categorical
     statement by the Chief Secretary on behalf of the State Government
     that the Government will introduce legislation if found necessary          D
      and so advised, the Division Bench should have proceeded to again
      give the same direction. This the Division Bench was clearly not
      entitled to do. It is entirely a matter for the executive branch of
      the Government to decide whether or not to introduce any parti·
     cular legislation. Of course, any member of the legislature can also
     introduce legislation but the Court certainly cannot mandate the           E
     executive or any member of the legislature to initiate legislation,
     howsoever·necessary or desirable the Court may consider it to be.
     That is not a matter which is within the sphere of the functions
     and duties allocated to the judiciary under the Constitution. If the
     executive is not carrying out any duty laid upon it by the Consti-
     tution or the law, the Court can certainty require the executive· to       F
-~
     carry out such duty and this is precisely what the Court does when
     it entertains public interest litigation. Where the Cqurt finds, on
     being moved by an aggrieved party or by any public spirited
     individual or social action group, that the executive is remiss in
     discharging its obligations under the Constitution or the law, so
                                                                                G
     that the poor and the under privileged continue to be subjected to
     exploitation and injustice or are deprived of their social and econo-
     mic entitlements or that social legislation enacted for their benefit
     i• ncit being implemented thus depriving them of the rights and
     1>ene11ts conferred upon them, the Court certainly can and must
                                                                                H
      684            SUPREME COURT RE~ORTS                   [1985] 3 S.C.R.

A    intervene and compel the Executive to carry out its constitutional
     and legal obligations and ensure that the deprived and vulnerable
     sections of the community are no longer subjected to exploitation
     or injustice and they are able to realise their social an.d economic
     rights. When the Court passes any orders in public interest
     litigation, the Court does so not with a view to mocking at legis-
B    lative or executive authority or in a spirit of confrontation but with
     a view to enforcing the Constitution and the law, because it is vital
     for the maintenace of the rule of law that the obligations which are
     laid upon the executive by the Constitution and the law should be
     carried out faithfully and no one should go away with a feeling that·
     the constitution and the law are .meant only for the benefit of a
c    fortunate few and have no meaning for the large numbers of half-
     clad, half-hungry people of this country. That is a feeling which
     should never be allowed to grow. But at the same time the Court
     cannot group the function assigned to the executive and the legisla·
      ture under the Constitution and it cannot even indirectly require the
D    executive to introduce a particular legislation or the legislature to
     pass it or assume to itself a supervisory role over the law making
     activities of the executive and the legislature. We are, therefore
     of the view that the Division Bench was clearly in error in issuing'
     a direction to the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit within 6 weeks
     setting out the action taken by the State Government with a view to
E    implementing the recommendation contained in paragraph 16 of the
     Report.

              There is also one other error into which the Division Bench ·
      of the High Court seems to have fallen. The Division Bench of
      the High Court treated the letter of the guardian of the student
F     along with the letter addressed to the . guardian by the student as
     ·constituting a Memo of Writ Petition. This was certainly within the
                                                                                )-   '

      jurisdiction of the High Court to do,· since it is now settled law that
      this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and the High Courts
      under Article 226 of the Constitution can treat a letter as a Writ
      Petition and take action upon it. We may of course make it clear
G     that it is not every letter which may be treated as a Writ Petition
      by the Supreme Court or the High Court. 1t is only where a
      Jetter is addressed by an aggrieved person or by a public spirited
      individual or a social action group for enforcement of the cons-
ti     titutional or legal rights of a person in custody or of a class or
       ~roup:of persons who by reason of poverty, disability or sociallity
             HIMACHAL. PRADESH v. A PARENT OF STUDENT (Bhagwati, J.)         685
    )

        or economically disadvantaged position find it difficult to approach        A
        the court for redress that the Supreme Court or the High Court
        would be justified, nay bound, to treat the letter as a Writ Petition.
        There may also be cases where even letter addressed for redressal
        of a wrong done to an individual may be treated as a Writ Petition
        where the Supreme Court or the High Court considers it expedient
        to do so in the interests of justice. This is aninnovative strategy         n
        which has been evolved lly the Supreme Court for the purpose of
        providing easy access to justice to the weaker sections of Indian
        humanity and it is a powerful tool in the hlnds of public spirited
        individuals and social action groups for combating exploitation and
        injustice and securing for the under-privileged segments of society
        their social and economic entitlements. It is a highly effective
                                                                                    c
        weapon in the armoury of the law for reaching social justic·J to l he
        common man. The Division Bench was, therefore, certainly right
        in entertaining the two letters as a Writ Petition and no exception
        can be taken to it, but it was wholly in error in directing tlut
                                                                                    D
        these two letters on which the Division Bench acted should not"
        be placed on the record of the proceedings and the identity of the
         guardian and the student should not be disclosed. It is difficult to see
         how any proceedings can be entertained by the Court keeping the
         petitioner before it anonymous or his identity secret. If the identity
        of the petitioner is not disclosed, how .would the respondent against
         whom relief is sought ever be able to verify the authenticity of the
         petitioner and the credibility of the case brought by him. It would
        be contrary to all canons of fair play and violative of ali principles
        of judicial propriety and administration to entertain a Writ Petition
        without disclosing the identity cif the petitioner, though the court
        knows who th.e petitioner is. We are, therefore, of the opinion             f
        that the procedure adopted by the Division Bench was wrong and
•·'
.

        the Division Bench was not justified in directing that the two
        letters on which action was initiated by the Division Bench
        should not be kept in the record of the proceedings and that the
        identity of the guardian and the student should not be disclosed.
              We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the orders              G
        dated 24th July, 1984 and 18th September, 1984 in so far as they dir-
        ect the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit setting out the action taken
        by the State Government in implementing the recommendation
        contained in paragraph 16 of the Report of the Anti-ragging Com-
        mittee. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.

        N .V.J\.                                               Appeal alloweed.     H