Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Learned Advocate-General also cited the decision A. K. Roy v. Union of India, , wherein it was held as follows :--

"The Parliament having left to the unfettered judgment of the Central Government the question as regards the time for bringing the provisions of the 44th Amendment into force, it is not for the Court to compel the Government to do that which, according to the mandate of the Parliament, lies in the discretion to do when it considers it opportune to do it The executive is responsible to the Parliament and if the Parliament considers that the executive has betrayed its trust by not bringing any provision of the amendment into force, it can censure the executive. If it were permissible to the Court to compel the Government by a mandamus to bring a constitutional amendment into force on the ground that the Government has failed to do what it ought to have done, it would be equally permissible to the Court to prevent the Government from acting, on some such ground as that the time was not yet ripe for issuing the notification for bringing, the amendment into force. It is difficult to appreciate what practical difficulty can possibly prevent the Government from bringing into force the provisions of S. 3 of the 44th Amendment, after the passage of two and half years. But the remedy is not the writ of mandamus. The Parliament having seen the necessity of introducing into the Constitution a provision like S. 3 of the 44th Amendment, it is not open to the Central Government to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy of that section. If only the Parliament were to lay down an objective standard to guide and control the discretion of the Central Government in the matter of bringing the various provisions of the Act into force, it would have been possible to compel the Central Government by an appropriate writ to discharge the function assigned to it by the Parliament."