HC rejects PIL against Food Security ordinance

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a PIL seeking quashing of controversial Food Security ordinance.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a PIL seeking quashing of controversial Food Security ordinance for alleged "misuse" of constitutional provision to gain political mileage, saying it was for Parliament to take a decision on it.

"Parliament is in session and it is for the Parliament to take a decision... We refrain from expressing any opinion on the issue. The petition is dismissed," a bench of Acting Chief Justice BD Ahmed and Justice Vibhu Bakhru said.

The court was hearing the PIL filed by advocate M L Sharma questioning the procedure adopted and claimed that an ordinance can be promulgated only under extraordinary circumstances which was lacking in the present case.

The PIL was filed in the High Court after the Supreme Court refused to entertain it saying that it cannot examine the ordinance on the ground that there was political dimension or objective behind it.

The apex court, however, had given liberty to the lawyer to move the high court for redressal of his grievances.

"Prior to bringing the ordinance, the Food Security Bill was brought three times before Parliament and the ordinance was brought in contravention of the constitutional mandate for gaining political mileage," Sharma said, adding that he was not against the bill but was opposing the procedures adopted to bring it.

It sought quashing of the ordinance alleging that the constitutional provision has been misused for pre-election propaganda and political gains.

"We cannot decide it," the High Court said.

The petition alleged Article 123 of the Constitution that deals with the power of the President to promulgate ordinances during the recess of Parliament has been misused as there was no "emergency" situation.

"There was no emergency circumstances exist to issue impugn ordinance hence it does not comply with the terms of Art. 123. Therefore, the impugned notification is unconstitutional and is liable to be declared unconstitutional and void," it said.


By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. You can find out more by clicking this link