The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the composition of a committee set up to examine the necessity of implementing Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the State [Abdul Vahab Mohammed Shabbir Sopariwala v. State of Gujarat].
The plea filed by one Abdul Vahab Mohammed Shabbir Sopariwala sought reconstitution of the committee because it lacked representation from minority communities.
However, Justice Niral R Mehta said that the committee was established through an executive order and in the absence of any statutory mandate, the selection of its members fell entirely within the State's discretion.
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that once the Committee has been constituted purely by executive order under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, in absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary, selection of particular members for constitution of Committee would be within the absolute domain of the State Government and thereby, it is perfectly justified for the State authorities to select the members of the Committee and for which a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued," the Court held.
The Court further observed that mere constitution of a committee cannot be said to cause prejudice to any class of people, especially when it remains open to participation by all sections of the society.
Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel had on February 4 announced the establishment of the committee.
The committee was tasked with evaluating the need for a UCC and drafting a bill in that regard.
The committee is headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Desai and its members include retired IAS officer CL Meena, advocate RC Kodekar, former Vice-Chancellor of Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Dakshesh Thakar and social activist Geetaben Shroff.
The petitioner sought a direction to the State government to reconstitute the committee with new members possessing relevant knowledge and expertise on the subject.
Additionally, Sopariwala urged the Court to direct the government to adopt a consultative process that includes all religious and cultural communities before proceeding with any steps toward implementing the UCC.
Sopariwala's counsel contended that since the committee was formed to assess the necessity of implementing the UCC which would impact various personal laws such as Hindu Law, Muslim Law etc, it would inevitably affect several minority communities including Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Sikhs.
It was further argued that the committee lacked representation from the minority communities.
The counsel for the State argued that since the petitioner has not challenged the State government’s power to constitute the committee under Article 162 of the Constitution, he cannot question the selection of its members.
He contended that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to challenge the appointment or selection of committee members as the constitution of such a committee is an administrative action and not a statutory obligation.
After considering the arguments, the Court opined that the constitution of the committee was not carried out under any statutory provision.
"The said Committee is not having any character of statutory in nature. As a matter of fact, the constitution of the said Committee is purely an administrative decision. Thus, in absence of any statutory provisions, the authority cannot be expected and / or directed to act in a particular manner. In other words, when the constitution of Committee is not back by any statutory force, in that event, selection of members of the Committee cannot be subjected to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," the Court stated.
The Court, by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the State authorities to select members in a particular manner, it added.
"Any direction and / or order, in that regard, would be said to be unjustified and unwarranted interference in a purely administrative affairs of the State authorities, and thereby, this Court would not like to go in the area, which is absolutely within the domain of the State Government on its administrative side," the Court said.
Thus, it dismissed the plea.
Advocate Zamir Z Shaikh appeared for the petitioner.
Advocate General Kamal Trivedi along with advocates GH Virk, Dharitri Pancholi and Vinay Vishen appeared for the State.
[Read Order]