D. M., Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass

SEPARATION OF POWERS AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

FACTS

The plaintiffs (Respondents) were initially appointed as Mali (gardener) on daily wages at the Aravali Golf Club, run by the Haryana Tourism Corporation. They were later assigned the duties of a Tractor Driver, though no such post was available in the establishment. For many years, they were only paid a gardener’s salary, before the Appellant started paying them daily wages at the rate recommended for tractor drivers. Despite working as tractor drivers for about a decade, their services were regularised against the post of Mali in 1999, and not as tractor drivers. The Respondents filed a civil suit claiming regularisation against the posts of tractor driver.

ISSUE

The issue in the current scenario is whether the court has the jurisdiction to direct the institute to create new posts.

DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE IN HIGH COURT

The Single Judge affirmed the judgment issued by the First Appellate Court, which held that since the defendants were taking on the work of the tractor driver, the post of a tractor driver should be sanctioned and regularised.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

The doctrine of separation of powers isn’t explicitly and in its absolute rigidity been recognized in our Constitution, but our Constitution makers have meticulously defined the powers of the three organs, i.e., Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Such organs are required to function and exercise their discretion within their own spheres as demarcated by the Constitution. The Constitution expects and trusts the organs to function and exercise the discretion as strictly prescribed in the procedure. The functioning of the democracy depends on the independent working of the organs. Legislature and Executive have mostly all the powers and Judiciary has the power to ensure that the two organs function within the Constitutional limits. Judicial review is a powerful weapon and helps in restraining any unConstitutional activity performed by the two organs. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self-imposed discipline of judicial restraint.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• This Hon'ble court observed that according to the Constitution, Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have their own spheres of operation and it wouldn’t be proper for the three organs of the state to encroach upon their respective domains, otherwise the balance of the Constitution would be disrupted. The court also agreed with Mr. Montesquieu’s views wherein the Judiciary was rightly criticised for over-reach and encroachment into the domain of the other two organs.

• The court clarified that the function of the court is to examine the challenged State action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers. However, the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. While exercising the power of judicial review of an administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority.

• Further, the Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the legislature or the executive.

• The court referred to the judgment V.K. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was observed that the judges shouldn’t proclaim that “The Judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of law maker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour.” It also referred to Tata Cellular v. Union of India where the modern trend towards judicial restraint was noted, but also the tendency of some courts to perform legislative or executive functions.

• The court emphasized that judicial restraint is consistent with and complimentary to the balance of power of the three organs. It harbours respect for the other two branches of the State and also protects the independence of the judiciary.

• The court held that if the judiciary does not exercise restraint and over-stretches its limits there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and others. The judiciary should, therefore, confine itself to its proper sphere, realising that in a democracy many matters and controversies are best resolved in a non-judicial setting.

• This court was therefore of the view that both the High Court and First Appellate Court acted beyond their jurisdiction in directing creation of posts of tractor driver to accommodate the Respondents. The creation or sanction of posts falls exclusively within the domain of the Executive/Administration.