Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
While hearing a petition filed in 2012 with a prayer for issuance of a writ or order mandating an amendment in the section 3(3) of the Bodhgaya Temple act, 1949 for shifting the powers of the administration of a temple from Hindus to Buddhists, the Apex court bench of CJI Dipak Misra, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AM Khanwilkar stated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the legislature to make a desired amendment. A case in point is the 1994 Kerala HC decision in Vasudev Menon v Govt. of India in which the court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued by the Court against the government for the enactment of law. It is within the discretion and duty of the parliament to enact laws and make amendments.
The Section 3 of the Bodhgaya Temple provides for the institution of an 8-member committee to govern the management of the temple and the properties appurtenant thereto out of which 4 members including the Priest who manages the saivaite monastery should be Hindus. The proviso to the section 3(3) also mandates the appointment of a Hindu as a chairman of the committee if the District Magistrate who is required by the act to be the ex-officio chairman turns out a non-Hindu. The petitioners had contested exactly this provision.
The Court held that only a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the provision of the act can be entertained by the court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824