Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KANHAIYA LAL SETHIA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Decided
4 August 1997
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 245 · 1997 INSC 593
Also cited as
  • (1997) 6 SCC 573 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

In this Writ Petition, filed by way of 'Public Interest Litigation', the petitioners have prayed as follows :- .

p. 245, margin E

(a) direct respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to introduce an Official Bill in the Parliament to include Rajasthani language in . the Vlllth Schedule to the Constitution; or to sponsor a Private Member's Bill to be introduced on this subject;

p. 245, margin F

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'

p. 245, margin G

AND (b) pass such order/orders or give such direction/directions as your

p. 246, margin A

Lordships may deem fit and proper.

p. 246, margin A

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 poli~y 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 ma/a fides. No such infirmity is present in the instant case.

p. 246, margin A

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 the petitioner to seek a direction to the Union of India "to sponsor a Private Member's Bill to be introduced on this subject".

p. 246, margin C

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.

p. 246, margin D

This writ petition und;:r Article 32 is misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 246, margin E