The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that a writ court lacks the authority to compel the legislature to enact legislation on a specific topic. This legal principle was underscored in a case where the Union Government appealed against specific directives issued by the Madras High Court to the Central Government. These directions encompassed:

1. Instructing the Union Government to contemplate introducing a Bill concerning Liability in Tort within six months.
2. Directing the Union Government to determine whether the Law Commission should attain the status of a statutory or constitutional body within six months.
3. Mandating the Union Government to allocate increased resources and infrastructure to the Law Commission of India.
4. Requiring the Union Government to appoint the Chairman and Members of the Law Commission within three months.
5. Dictating the Union Government to designate a proficient Nodal Officer in each department within six months.

The Supreme Court invalidated and dismissed directions 1, 2, and 5, affirming that a writ court does not possess the authority to instruct the government to introduce a specific bill or make policy determinations. Concerning direction 3, the Court noted that the Central Government must promptly consider the 22nd Law Commission's funding request to facilitate effective functioning. Direction 4, related to the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Law Commission, had already been fulfilled.

The Court accentuated that while Constitutional Courts can voice opinions or offer recommendations, they lack the power to mandate the legislature to legislate on a particular matter in a specific manner. The Court also engaged in a discourse on the subject of codifying the law of torts, suggesting that the necessity for codification is a subject of debate.

The case underscored the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, confirming that policy decisions and legislative affairs fall within the legislative realm. The judiciary's role lies in interpreting the law and safeguarding its constitutionality.

Case Title: Union of India And Ors. v. K. Pushpavanam And Ors. SLP(C) No. 478/2022