The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to tax agricultural income in the national capital.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the relief sought by the petitioner, one Aakash Goel, fell squarely within the domain of the legislature.

"From a perusal of the prayer clause it is apparent that the petitioner is asking the court to issue a mandamus to the legislature to enact a particular law. Such an a mandamus in our clear opinion is not permissible. The writ petition is highly misconceived," said the Court.

The PIL challenged the continued exemption granted to agricultural income from taxation, arguing that it created fiscal inequality and enabled misuse by high-income individuals.

It claimed that salaried employees, traders and professionals remained within the tax net, while wealthy individuals declaring agricultural income were able to avoid taxation.

The plea invoked Articles 14 (right to equality), 38 (duty of the State to promote welfare) and 265 (no tax without authority of law) of the Constitution to argue that the exemption results in unfair classification and unequal treatment among taxpayers.

The plea also relied on Article 246 (division of law-making powers) and Entry 46 of the State List (States can tax agricultural income) to argue that Delhi has the legislative power to make laws to tax agricultural income.

Accordingly, the petitioner sought directions to the authorities to invoke powers under Section 22(1)(a) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 (provision allowing law-making steps), and initiate legislative or policy measures to address the alleged misuse.

During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned whether it could issue such directions.

"Can we issue any such a direction? You are asking us to direct the government to legislate," said the Court.

When the petitioner’s counsel argued that he was only seeking consideration, the Court pointed to the prayer clause and noted that it effectively sought a mandate to legislate.

The petitioner further contended that the classification between agricultural and non-agricultural income was arbitrary.

"That is what you feel. That will not form basis of any mandamus," responded the Court.

Ultimately, the Court declined to entertain the plea, reiterating that such matters fall within the policy domain of the government and legislature.

The PIL was filed through advocate Kumar Utkarsh.