Whether SC/HC Judges should be prohibited from taking up arbitration while holding constitutional and statutory posts?

 As would be obvious from the aforesaid, the relief sought in the
petition has not been controverted by the UOI also. In fact the UOI has
itself tried to grant the said relief but there are implicit delays in the same.
The Courts though, whenever have found a vacuum in legislation and the
need to fill the same, have immediately stepped in, as in (i) Vishaka Vs.
State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241; (ii) Vineet Narain Vs. Union of
India (1998) 1 SCC 226; (iii) Mrs. Asha Sharma Vs. Chandigarh
Administration (2011) 10 SCC 86; (iv) Court on its Own Motion Vs.
Union of India MANU/SC/1094/2012; (v) Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan Vs.
Union of India (2014) II SC 477, but here, we hesitate to do so, out of our
deference to the legislature, which is seized of the matter and, respecting the
doctrine of separation of powers. The subject, in our view, falls in the
domain of legislature and we will be overstepping our limits if, while the
legislature is debating the issue, pre-empt the legislature by issuing 
directions.
 We therefore dispose of the petition with a direction to the
respondents to bestow special attention on the issue and to ensure that
appropriate legislation is made at the earliest.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 Date of decision: 11th December, 2015
 W.P.(C) 866/2010
COMMON CAUSE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Bhushan 
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Dated;DECEMBER 11, 2015

Print Page