In a recent case, the Supreme Court directed the appropriate government to enact a law by

June 2011.  The case, Gainda Ram & Ors. V. MCD and Ors.[1], concerned the legal
framework for regulating hawking in Delhi.  The judgement lays out the background to this
case by stating that the regulation of hawking in Delhi had been proceeding under directions
issued by the Supreme Court in previous cases, and was being implemented by municipal
authorities such as the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). The NDMC and the
MCD have also framed schemes to regulate hawkers as per a policy of the government
framed in 2004.  However, since these schemes were not laid before Parliament, the Court
held that these schemes cannot be called ‘law’ or drafted under the authority of any law.  The
Court also stated that there is an urgent need to enact a legislation to regulate hawking, and
the rights of street vendors. It referred to a Bill which had been framed by the government,
and stated that since the government has already taken the first step in the legislative process
by drafting a Bill, the legislative process should be completed.  On the basis of this, and other
reasons, it directed the government to enact a law by June 2011.

Public interestt: Mandamus is usually granted in cases where there is a significant

public interest at stake and where failure to enact the law might cause substantial
harm or violate fundamental rights.

**1. Protection of Fundamental Rights:**

In a democratic society like India, the Constitution guarantees various fundamental rights to
its citizens. The judiciary has the crucial role of upholding and protecting these rights. If
there is a gap in the existing legislation, and certain fundamental rights are being violated as
a result, the courts may find it appropriate to intervene and issue a mandamus to Parliament
to enact a law that addresses the specific issue.

For example, let's consider a scenario where there is no specific legislation prohibiting online
harassment and cyberbullying. In the absence of such a law, individuals might be subject to
severe emotional distress and violation of their right to privacy and dignity. If the courts find
that existing laws are insufficient to address these challenges adequately, they could
mandate Parliament to enact a law that specifically tackles online harassment, thus
protecting the fundamental rights of the affected individuals.

a. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized sexual
harassment at the workplace as a violation of the fundamental rights of working women.
Since there was no specific legislation addressing workplace sexual harassment, the court
formulated guidelines to be followed until a law was enacted. This decision exemplifies the
court's proactive approach in safeguarding fundamental rights and directing legislative
action when necessary.
b. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009): In this landmark case, the Delhi
High Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships, ruling that Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code violated the fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and equality. The
court's decision urged Parliament to consider amending the law to reflect the principles of
non-discrimination and equality.

**2. Remedying Legislative Inaction:**

In a democracy, the legislature is responsible for enacting laws that address the needs and
concerns of the public. However, there might be instances where the legislative body has
persistently failed to take action on significant issues, resulting in a lack of adequate laws to
address pressing matters.

For instance, imagine a situation where climate change poses a severe threat to the
environment and the people, but the government and Parliament have repeatedly failed to
pass comprehensive environmental protection laws. If the judiciary finds that this inaction
poses a significant risk to the public and the environment, it may issue a mandamus to
Parliament, compelling them to enact comprehensive environmental legislation to remedy
the legislative inaction.

a. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986): In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue
of vehicular pollution in Delhi, which the government had failed to take adequate measures
to control. The court issued several directions, including mandating the implementation of
emission norms and the use of catalytic converters. The court's intervention demonstrated
its readiness to remedy legislative inaction in environmental matters affecting public health.
b. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014): In this case, the Supreme
Court banned the use of bulls in traditional "Jallikattu" events and bullock-cart races due to
the absence of a law regulating such activities and the concerns for animal welfare. The
court's ruling highlighted the need for legislation to address the welfare of animals in
traditional events.

**3. Unconstitutional Laws:**

In India, the Constitution is the supreme law, and any legislation that violates its provisions is
considered unconstitutional. If certain laws in force are found to be unconstitutional, the
courts may direct Parliament to enact new legislation that adheres to the constitutional
principles.

For example, let's assume there is a law that discriminates against a particular religious or
ethnic group, contravening the fundamental right to equality and non-discrimination as
guaranteed by the Constitution. If the courts declare this law as unconstitutional, they might
issue a mandamus to Parliament to repeal the existing discriminatory law and enact a new
one that upholds the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

It is crucial to note that while these scenarios provide a basis for considering a mandamus to
Parliament, the judiciary would still approach such decisions with great caution, ensuring
that they don't encroach on the legislature's domain or disrupt the democratic balance of
power. The courts would carefully evaluate the necessity of intervention, considering
whether other remedies have been exhausted and whether the circumstances justify the
exceptional measure of mandamus to ensure the proper functioning of the legal system and
protection of citizens' rights.

a. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): In this significant case, the Supreme Court declared
the election of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as void due to electoral malpractices. The
court's judgment reaffirmed the principle that no individual, even the Prime Minister, is
above the Constitution. This case showcases the court's commitment to upholding
constitutional values and striking down laws that violate the Constitution.
b. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): In this case, the Supreme Court
recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and held that passive
euthanasia could be allowed under certain conditions. The court provided guidelines and
directed Parliament to consider enacting legislation to regulate cases of passive euthanasia,
emphasizing the importance of addressing this sensitive issue through appropriate
legislation.