The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the constitution of a state-appointed panel entrusted with examining the need for a Uniform Civil Code within the state. The petition had sought its reconstitution on the ground that the five‑member panel lacked representation from minority communities. The Court underscored that the formation of the panel was carried out in exercise of executive powers and, since there is no statutory framework mandating the composition of such a committee, its membership fell entirely within the administrative domain of the state government. The bench, while pronouncing the brief order containing the word “Dismissed,” made clear that absence of the panel being backed by statute rendered its formation beyond the reach of judicial interference under writ jurisdiction.
The petition had been filed by a resident of Surat, who contended that the committee, constituted by an executive order, excluded representatives from religious minority communities such as Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. It was argued that the exclusion of such communities not only undermined diversity of perspectives but also violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 25 relating to equality, prohibition of discrimination, and freedom of religion. According to the petitioner, forming a committee to consider a code having broad impacts on personal laws without including specialists or stakeholders from those faiths amounted to prejudicial exclusion and impaired the inclusiveness of the consultative process.
The petitioner had earlier made a representation to the Chief Minister requesting inclusion of legal experts and community representatives familiar with personal laws and their interplay with religious traditions. Nonetheless, the government moved ahead and constituted the panel through an executive order, naming five individuals to carry out the designated mandate. The committee is chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge and includes a retired IAS officer, a senior advocate, an academician and a social activist. Despite the absence of minority representatives, the state maintained that the committee would keep itself open to receiving views from members of all religious and cultural communities.
When the writ petition was heard, the state defended the panel’s formation as a lawful administrative exercise authorized under Article 162 of the Constitution. The government emphasized that there is no statute prescribing the manner in which such a panel must be constituted, nor listing any requirements regarding its composition or expertise. Counsel representing the state maintained that challenges to the internal composition of a committee formed through executive action would amount to unwarranted judicial overreach into a purely administrative domain.
In response, the Court observed that the petitioner had not questioned the validity of the government’s authority to establish the committee under Article 162, nor did he allege any violation of a legal duty or statutory provision. Instead, the petition sought direction to the state regarding the internal selection of panel members. The High Court clarified that once the state opted to issue an executive order to constitute a committee, the details of that exercise—such as member selection—are matters left to the state’s discretion, and not subject to judicial scrutiny in the absence of statutory norms.
Justice Niral R. Mehta emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to direct the state to select members “in a particular manner” when no statute prescribes such a requirement. The Court highlighted that judicial interference in such executive decisions would be inappropriate and tantamount to illegitimate intrusion into administrative affairs. The Court further noted that the executive order itself did not exhibit prejudice towards any class, especially as it remained open for any person or community to submit their views to the committee in the course of its inquiry on the Uniform Civil Code.
The Court also addressed the petitioner’s constitutional arguments relating to Articles 14, 15 and 25, pointing out that the mere constitution of a panel without specific members from certain religious communities does not result in automatic breach of equality or non-discrimination provisions. The Court reasoned that the absence of representation could not be interpreted as prejudice when all groups were free to participate by making representations to the committee. In this context, the Court stated that there was no legal right to insist on appointments from particular backgrounds in the absence of statutory direction.
Having considered all arguments, the High Court concluded that there was no justification for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any extraordinary remedy. The bench observed that the petition did not challenge the exercise of the power itself, but only the allocation of nominees chosen by the executive. In the absence of any statutory criteria or legal entitlement to have particular communities represented, the Court held that the petition failed on both legal and constitutional grounds.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed outright and the composition of the committee upheld as valid. By doing so, the High Court reaffirmed its stance that administrative decisions taken under Article 162 regarding committee formations remain immune from judicial interference when they involve non-statutory appointments. The Court’s order effectively validates the executive’s discretion in constituting advisory panels, even on sensitive issues like a potential Uniform Civil Code, as long as there is no legal duty to include individuals from specific communities.
The ruling leaves intact the panel chaired by the retired Supreme Court judge and comprising the retired IAS officer, the advocate, the academician and the social activist. The government retains its freedom to proceed with the committee’s mandate, including drafting a bill or consulting stakeholders. Communities and individuals may still submit their opinions or representations to the ongoing inquiry, and the absence of formal representation does not bar them from participating in the consultative process.
In summary, the High Court’s decision underscores that executive formation of non-statutory committees is beyond the scope of writ intervention, and absence of minority representation does not amount to constitutional infringement where no statute mandates such inclusion. The Court’s order dismisses the challenge to the composition of the committee and upholds the state government’s authority in structuring an advisory panel in respect of a Uniform Civil Code inquiry.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.