JUDGEMENT
M.SRINIVASAN C.J. -
(1.)In this writ petition, two prayers are made. The first prayer is to issue a mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 3 to notify and make applicable the provisions of Hindu Succession Act in ) Tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh in consonance with the provisions off Article 255 (1) read with 5th Schedule of the Constitution of India Such at prayer cannot be granted by a Court of law. It is a matter, which has to be taken up for consideration by the concerned Government and the Legislature. In fact in paragraph 29 of the reply, it is stated that the petitioner could approach the 1st respondent so that the latter could refer the matter to the 3rd respondent for consideration. In the circumstances, this prayer is rejected.
(2.)Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in C Masilamani Mudaliar and others v. Idol of Shri Swaminathaswami Swaminathaswami Thirukoil and others, (1996) 8 SCC 525. He places reliance on the following passage of the judgment :
"18. Human rights are derived from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person Human rights and fundamental freedom have been reiterated by the universal declaration of Human Rights Democracy, Development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and have mutual reinforcement. The human rights for women, including girl child are, therefore, inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights. The full development of personality and fundamental freedoms and equal participation by women in political, social, economic and cultural life are concomitants for national development, social and family stability and growth, culturally socially and economically All forms of discrimination on grounds of gender is violative of fundamental freedoms and human rights.
(3.)The observations of the Supreme Court in that judgment cannot be torn out of the context The Court had to deal with a case where they had to decide whether the estate of the person concerned became absolute under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act or whether section 14 (2) of the Act would apply. While holding that section 14 (4) was applicable to the case the Court observed that the rights of women have to be recognised and it was only with that view in mind the Legislature introduced section 14 (1) into the Act, While doing so, the Court made reference to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The ruling has no relevance whatever in the present case. It is now well settled that it is not for the Court to direct the Government to introduce or implement the provisions of a particular Act in any area.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.