Judicial over-reach if judges interfere in academic matters: Bombay High Court in plea to make Constitutional Law etc compulsory subjects

Holding that it would amount to judicial over-reach to interfere in matters in which it has little or no expertise, the Bombay High Court refused to allow a plea seeking directions to spread awareness on the Constitution of India, Right to Information Act and Consumer Protection Act amongst citizens (Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale v. Union of India)..The Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Ravindra V Ghuge noted that through the present plea, social worker Sanjay Kale was expecting the judges to act as academicians and interfere in academic matters, a field in which the judges had little to no expertise..Refusing to act beyond its expertise, the Court held,"As Judges, we primarily don the hat of an adjudicator. Having regard to the manifold activities in relation to administrative work that we perforce are bound to discharge, we also don other hats. An attempt is made by the petitioner by presenting this Public Interest Litigation to make us don the hat of an academician too and interfere in academic matters, a field of activity where we have little or no expertise. There could be a judicial over-reach and stepping into the domain of the other organs of the State, if we were to entertain the prayers in this PIL petition.".In its order, the Court referred to the foreword of Justice KK Mathew’s book titled ‘Democracy, Equality and Freedom’, which reads “…in our present dispensation, a Judge cannot, except for honourable exceptions, lay plausible claim of legal scholarship”..While disposing of the plea, the Court permitted Kale to pursue his remedy before appropriate experts in the educational field..Kale had approached the High Court seeking directions to the Central and State governments to:Make Constitutional Law, Consumer Protection laws and Right to Information Act mandatory subjects for all graduate or postgraduate courses;Enforce a condition in the licenses of cinema houses and video parlours to have slides or short films on the important provisions in the said acts;Exhibit the important provisions of the said acts on TV and radio channels..In his plea filed through Talekar and Associates, Kale submitted that before approaching the High Court, he had made representations to the Governor of Maharashtra, pursuant to which the Secretary of Higher and Technical Education Department was directed to take appropriate steps.Accordingly, directions were issued to all non-agricultural universities to take appropriate decisions. However, it was claimed that none of the universities complied with the same..Kale also approached different universities in the State, out of which only a few took cognizance. He then approached the High Court expecting similar relief as given in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1991) wherein the Supreme Court directed the government to make environmental studies a compulsory subject at the school level to spread awareness among citizens..Kale stated in his plea that “the anxiety to do good for the society in general has died out and oblivious to the repercussions of one’s actions, everyone is prepared to so whatever is convenient for his own purpose.” In this backdrop, Kale argued that if laws are to be enforced, it is necessary that people are made aware of these laws..“Keeping the citizens informed is an obligation of the Government. It is equally the responsibility of the society to adequately educate every component of it so that social level is kept up”, he stated in the plea..[Order].[Petition]