HINDUSTANI ANDOLAN & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. on 24 November 1983

•

!Jo2

HlJ'IDUSTANt ANbOLAN & ORS. A

V •

• • STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

•

•

November 24, 1983

B

[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND

M:P. THAKKAR, JJ.)

•

,' writ jurisdiction of Court-Court cannot issue a general virit of mandamus that whenever a crimihal is suspet ted to have Ulken shelter in a place of worship, the police mUst enter that place. ···

c

...,,

HELD : It is the executive which has to take a policy dechion as regards the steps to be taken in a givi.:n situation, after takins into account the .demailds af the prevailing situation. It is not .that the police should be silent spectators to wanton destruction of life; but the Cour.t cannot · comme_nd that ·th2 police must enter places of worship f0rcibly. [902 H; 903 A] .

D

'

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition· (Cr!.) No. 2989 of·.

1981 t

(Under article 32 of the Constitution)

E

R.L. Panjwani, Manoj Saxena and R.D. Upndhaya for the petitioners.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

F

CHANDRACHUD, C.J, The question raised in this petition is whether the Government can ask the police not to enter a. place t;f worship, even if criminanls are reported to be hiding or· harboured therein. It is impossible and undesirable for ariy Court to issue · a general writ of Mandamus to the effect that whenever a criminal G , is · suspected to have taken shelter in a place -of worship, the police must enter that place, regardless of the overall. situation of law.and order. Speaki.ng generally, Courts cannot enforce law and order by issuing general directions without reference to specific ·H instances. The Government has to assess, in the context of tJis. ·prevailing conditions, the impact of the steps -taken to · enforce Ja;J and order. And, it is tlie executive which has to take a policy ·decision as ragards the .steps to be taken in a given situation, after !111'1ousrAN1 ANDOLA~ v. PUNJAB (Chandrachud, C.J.)

taking into acco·1.nt tho d:m1nd; of tho prevailing situation. We do not commend or suggest that the police should be silent spectators to wanton destruction of life but we cannot, as men of some little exjYerience of law and life; commend that the police must enter places of worship forcibly. While enforcing law and order, the executive cannot be oblivious of the possibility that while solving one problem of law and order, others more acute than the one sought to be solved may arise. Jhat is always a valid and relevant consideration.

With these observations, we dismiss this petition 'filed_ by two public-spirited organisations through their courageous convenor and , secretary respectively.

H.L.C.

Petition dismissed.

•