TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the High Court could direct the Census authorities to conduct a caste-wise census in a particular manner by issuing a mandamus that effectively reshaped a governmental policy under the Census Act, 1940; (ii) whether the earlier order relied upon by the High Court could bind the Census Commissioner when he had not been impleaded as a party in the earlier proceedings.
Issue (i): whether the High Court could direct the Census authorities to conduct a caste-wise census in a particular manner by issuing a mandamus that effectively reshaped a governmental policy under the Census Act, 1940.
Analysis: The power to determine the manner in which census information is to be collected rested with the Central Government under Section 8 of the Census Act, 1940, and the Government had issued notifications prescribing the information to be gathered. The Court held that judicial review does not extend to framing policy in a particular manner or to substituting a court-directed policy for an executive decision, unless the policy is arbitrary, capricious, irrational, or contrary to constitutional or statutory provisions. The High Court's direction to undertake caste-wise census was, therefore, an impermissible intrusion into policy-making.
Conclusion: The direction for caste-wise census was unauthorized and unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded on this issue.
Issue (ii): whether the earlier order relied upon by the High Court could bind the Census Commissioner when he had not been impleaded as a party in the earlier proceedings.
Analysis: An order passed behind the back of a person likely to be affected, without impleading that person as a party, is not binding upon that person and may be ignored for want of compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Census Commissioner, being the real aggrieved party, had not been a party to the earlier writ proceeding, and the prior direction could not, therefore, operate against him as a binding adjudication.
Conclusion: The earlier order did not bind the Census Commissioner and could not justify repetition of the same direction.
Final Conclusion: The impugned directions were set aside because the High Court had transgressed the limits of judicial review by mandating a policy choice reserved to the executive and by relying on an earlier order that was not binding on the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts cannot compel the executive to adopt a particular policy formulation through mandamus, and an order passed without impleading an affected party does not bind that party.
TaxTMI 
