Bhagwati. J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against two orders made by a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, one dated 24th July, 1984 and the other dated 18th September 1984, in so far as they direct the Chief Secretary to the Government Himachal Pradesh to file an affidavit setting out what action has been taken by the State Government towards implementation of the recommendation contained in paragraph 16 of the Report of the Anti-Ragging Committee. The impugned orders are in our opinion wholly unsustainable and ordinarily we would not have taken time to deliver a reasoned judgment and merely set aside the impugned orders with a brief observation, but we think it necessary to state in some detail our opinion in regard to the directions given in the impugned orders, because we find that this is one of those few cases which demonstrates what we have often said before, that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the legislature.
(2.) It appears that the Chief Justice of the High Court received a letter dated 4th April, 1984, from the guardian of a student of the Medical College in Shimla complaining about the ragging of freshers by senior students within as also outside the college campus and the hostel. The guardian of the student had annexed along with his letter to the Chief Justice a letter dated 25th March, 1984 received by him from his son. The Division Bench of the High Court presided over by the Chief Justice treated these two letters as constituting the Memo of Writ Petition but directed that these two letters should not be placed on the record of the proceedings in view of the request made in paragraph 6 of the letter of the guardian that the identity of the writer should not be disclosed on account of fear of reprisal. and for the self-same reason the Division Bench ordered that the identity of the student and the guardian should not be disclosed, in the proceedings. The Division Bench treating the two letters as a writ petition registered them as Civil Writ Petition No. 155 of 1984 and issued notice to the State Government, the Principal of the Medical College, Simla, the Himachal Pradesh University and the Director of Health Services, Government of Himachal Pradesh who were arrayed as respondents Nos. 1 to 4. On receipt of the notice of the Writ Petition, the Government of Himachal Pradesh filed an affidavit setting out the steps which the State Government and the college authorities had taken to check the ragging of freshers by senior students. The Director of Medical Education-cum-Principal of the Medical College, Simla also filed an affidavit opposing the admission of the writ petition on the ground that the college authorities had taken various steps for the purpose of curbing the evil of ragging and in fact had taken action on at least two occasions awarding punishment to the students who indulged in ragging by suspending them for a period of 4 to 6 months. The Division Bench, on a consideration of this material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the practice of ragging was prevailing in the Medical College, Simla on a noticeable scale and that ragging took the form of subjecting freshers including female students to inhuman and humiliating treatment degenerating even into physical violence and that the college authorities had not been able to effectively control ragging with the result that the college administration had lost confidence of a sizeable section of students, parents and well-wishers as regards its capacity to deal with the problem of ragging. The Division Bench accordingly gave various directions which included a direction to the State Government to 'constitute a committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor of the Himachal Pradesh University and the Secretary to the Government, Health Department, inter alia, to make "recommendations in regard to the curative, preventive and punitive measures to be adopted by the college authorities to control and curb the evil of ragging and the machinery to be set up to enforce these measures". This Committee which we shall for the sake of convenience refer to as the Anti-Ragging Committee, was to complete its work and submit its report within a period of six months from the date of its constitution.
(3.) The Anti-Ragging Committee submitted its Report to the High Court on 26th June, 1984. The Report contained various recommendations intended to control and curb the ragging of freshers by senior students in the Medical College and its hostel. We are concerned here, with only one recommendation namely that contained in paragraph 16 of the Report which was in the, following terms: "In quite a number of States in the country there are Acts on ragging which make ragging a cognizable offence and prescribe the types of punishment commensurate with the crimes committed. The Himachal Pradesh Government could be suggested to initiate such a legislation as early as possible. Pending such a legislation by the State Government, the University authorities could think of incorporating some provisions relating to ragging in the relevant ordinance of Discipline in the Ordinance of the University". The Division Bench by its order dated 24th July, 1984 gave directions for implementation of the various recommendations made in the Report and so far as recommendation contained in paragraph 16 of the Report was concerned, the Division Bench said: "The Chief Secretary to the State Government will file an affidavit within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the writ setting out the action proposed to be taken on the. recommendation contained in paragraph 16 (First Part) of the relevant portion of the Report". Though this direction ostensibly did no more than call upon the Chief Secretary to inform the Court as to what action the State Government proposed to take on the recommendations to initiate legislation for curbing ragging, it was, in fact and substance, intended to require the State Government to initiate legislation on the subject. If this direction were merely an innocuous one intended to inform the court whether the State Government intended to take any action on the recommendation to initiate legislation against ragging, no objection could possibly be taken against it, because it would leave the Government free to decide whether or not to initiate legislation in regard to ragging without mandatorily requiring the State Government to do so. But as the subsequent event would show, what the Division Bench intended to achieve by giving this direction was not just to obtain information as to what the State Government proposed to do in the matter but to actually require the State Government to initiate legislation against ragging. That is why, when the Chief Secretary in deference to this direction filed an affidavit stating, interalia, that the State Government had "taken notice of the recommendation to initiate legislation in this behalf, if found necessary and so advised", the Division Bench was not satisfied with this statement of the Chief Secretary and declined to close the proceeding so far as this particular aspect was concerned and proceeded, interalia, to reiterate, in its order dated 18th September 1984: "The Chief Secretary to the State Government will file an affidavit within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the Writ setting out the further action taken in the direction of the implementation of the recommendation contained in paragraph 16 (First Part) of the relevant portion of the Report of the Anti-Ragging Committee". When this direction was given by the Division Bench, it clearly implied that what the Division Bench wanted the State Government to do was to initiate legislation against ragging and for this purpose, time of 6 weeks was granted to the State Government. The State Government thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained, from this Court.;