TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) be recovered from Baba Ramdev for misusing National Flag for gaining undue mileage benefiting his commercial ends (yoga business) as well as the political gain drive during agitations; Shri Anna Hazare and others be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000,00/- (Rupees Ten crores) to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund for using/misusing National Flag for gaining the political mileage during agitations, and further to issue direction to the Central Government through Ministry of Law & Justice to revise the Flag Code of India 2002 and amend the same incorporating the amendment suggested by the petitioner himself. 2. The petitioner appears in person and on being asked by the court it has been pointed out by him that against the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e a person shows any kind of disrespect to the National Flag or does not observe the terms contained in the Code, legal action may be taken against him under the relevant statutory provisions. However, these are the questions of facts as to whether on a particular event a particular person has shown any kind of disrespect to the National Flag. For that purpose, the petitioner has already filed complaint before the authorities concerned. Thus, he cannot pursue the remedy simultaneously by filing the writ petition and on that count the petition is liable to be dismissed. More so, such a factual controversy cannot be examined in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner-in-person has emphasised that he has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the said case, the Court placed reliance on a large number of judgments, particularly M/s. Narinder Chand Hem Raj & Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 2399, where it has been held that legislative power can be exercised only by the legislature or its delegate and none else. 8. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 910, this Court deprecated the practice adopted by the Courts to issue directions to the legislature to enact a legislation to meet a particular situation observing : "...The direction given by the Division Bench was really nothing short of an indirect attempt to compel the State Government to initiate l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....slate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the Court." 11. Similarly in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1351, this Court held that Court cannot fix a period of limitation, if not fixed by the legislature, as "the Courts can admittedly interpret the law and do not make laws." The Court cannot interpret the statutory provision in such a manner "which would amount to legislation intentionally left over by the legislature". 12. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 2112, observing that the Court cannot issue direction to the legislature for amending the Act or Rules. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l activism and the need for judicial restraint, etc. The Court observed: "At the outset, we would say that it is not possible for this Court to give any direction for amending the Act or the statutory rules. It is for the Parliament to amend the Act and the Rules." 17. In State of U.P. & Ors. v. Jeet S. Bisht & Anr., (2007) 6 SCC 586, this Court held that issuing any such direction may amount to amendment of law which falls exclusively within the domain of the executive/legislature and the Court cannot amend the law. 18. In Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 568, this Court while dealing with the issue made the observation that in exceptional circumstances....