Supreme Court quashes Madras High Court directive to Central government to codify tort law in 6 months

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside a Madras High Court directive to the Central government to enact a law on tort liability within six months and to consider conferring statutory or Constitutional status for the Law Commission of India. [Union of India and ors vs K Pushpavanam and ors].A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol emphasised that no Constitutional Court can issue such directions to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. At best, the Court can recommend the need for a law or changes to an existing law, the bench observed. "No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. The Court may, at the highest, record its opinion or recommendation on the necessity of either amending the existing law or coming out with a new law," stated the Supreme Court's judgment. .The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by the Central government challenging a Madras High Court verdict of September 2021. In its decision, the High Court had taken critical note that there was no mechanism in place for the government to note down suggestions given by Constitutional Courts when it comes to the enactment of legislation or amendment of a law.The High Court had, therefore, opined that a Nodal Officer should be appointed in each government department in this regard. Pertinently, the High Court had directed the Central government to consider introducing a law on tort liability and to decide on whether the Law Commission of India should be conferred statutory or constitutional status. The High Court had added that the government should carry out these directives in six months' time. The High Court had also urged the Central government to allot more funds and infrastructure to the Law Commission of India and to appoint the members and chairman of the next Law Commission within three months. .The Supreme Court allowed the Central government's appeal against these directives in the High Court order. The Supreme Court noted that the issue of whether a law of torts and its liabilities should be codified, is debatable."A writ court cannot direct the Government to consider introducing a particular bill before the House of Legislature within a time frame. Therefore, the first direction issued under the impugned judgment was unwarranted," the Supreme Court, therefore, held.On the direction to give constitutional or statutory status to the Law Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the litigant before the High Court had no vested right to call for such directions. "Whether Law Commission should be given a status under the Constitution or under a Statute is a major policy decision to be taken by the Central Government. It is only the Central Government which can take a call on this issue. Therefore, the 2nd direction was uncalled for," the Supreme Court concluded. .The question of whether nodal officers should be appointed in each Union Ministry is also something to be decided by the Central government, the top court added. "The Court cannot compel the Central Government to appoint a nodal officer. All the departments of the Government have adequate notice of the judgments of Constitutional Courts in which recommendations are made for the amendment of any legislation. Therefore, the 5th direction is unwarranted," the Supreme Court said. .The appeal was accordingly allowed and the order under challenge was modified to set aside the above three directives. However, the top court clarified that the Union government should treat the three directives of the High Court as recommendations.Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Central government. Advocates Haripriya Padmanabhan, S Prabu Ramasubramanian, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Bharathimohan M, Priya R, S Sabari Bala Pandian, Tanya Shrivastava, and Avinash Kumar represented the original writ petitioner, one, K Pushpavanam..Supreme Court declines to entertain plea seeking statutory status for Law Commission of India.[Read Judgment]