The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision not to pass a writ to expedite the finalization of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015, which aimed to prohibit screening procedures for the Nursery School Admission
The Bench, consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, remarked,
“Can a mandamus be employed to enact a law? That’s the crux of the matter, and it aligns with the High Court’s perspective. We can’t assert that the High Court’s stance is incorrect. The Supreme Court cannot serve as a universal remedy for all issues.”
Background: Nursery School Admission
The petitioner in this case was Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group consisting of lawyers and social activists.
Their argument in the petition centered on the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015, which aimed to prohibit screening procedures in Nursery School Admissions. They contended that the bill, prepared in 2015, had languished for seven years without valid justification, contrary to the public interest.
This delay negatively impacted children’s interests in Nursery School Admission, leading to the adoption of arbitrary admission procedures by different schools.
Court’s Analysis: Nursery School Admission
The petitioner sought to invoke the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, to argue that eliminating the screening procedure for admission to nursery and pre-primary classes was necessary for implementing the RTE Act’s provisions.
However, the Delhi High Court, in its challenged judgment, noted that after a bill passes through a State’s legislative body, it is presented to the Governor. At this stage, it is the Governor’s prerogative to decide whether to grant assent, withhold assent, or refer the bill to the President for final approval.
The High Court maintained that,
“Courts cannot intervene or influence this process. They cannot instruct or issue a writ to the Governor to either approve or withhold approval. It is inappropriate for a High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, to dictate a timeframe to a constitutional authority like the Governor. According to our considered opinion, even if the bill has received legislative approval, it remains within the Governor’s discretion to consent or refer it back to the House. Therefore, this Court should not issue a writ of mandamus instructing the Governor to take action through a writ.”
Court Room Exchange:
It began with the petitioner’s counsel presenting arguments on the bill’s objective and significance.
Justice Kaul, on the other hand, remarked, “Is it even possible to issue a mandamus to legislate? This is the core issue, and it aligns with the High Court’s stance. We cannot declare the High Court’s position as erroneous. The Supreme Court cannot serve as a universal solution for all matters.”
In response, the counsel clarified that their request was merely to understand the bill’s current status.
Justice Kaul countered, “There were many acts, for example the Rent control Act…for ten years it was not implemented…. This is not an administrative action; this is a legislative side.”
Justice Kaul then inquired about the bill’s introduction date, to which the counsel responded that it had been in progress for eight years.
Justice Kaul expressed skepticism, suggesting that the extended delay indicated a lack of intent to enact the law.
Despite the counsel’s attempts to persuade the bench, they were unsuccessful, and the plea was dismissed.