Limitation on Judicial Mandamus for Policy Formulation: Subhash Singh Tomar v. Union of India

Introduction

This commentary examines the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in Subhash Singh Tomar v. Union of India through its Secretary (Writ Petition No. 12562 of 2025), decided on April 25, 2025 by Justice Subodh Abhyankar. The petitioner, appearing in person, sought a court directive under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the Central Government to formulate a licensing regime for the manufacture and sale of sharp-edged weapons and to prescribe a testing methodology for “sharpness.” The petition was dismissed for lack of legal or fundamental right infringement and as an improper use of the court’s writ jurisdiction to compel policy-making.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court’s order can be summarized in five key points:

The petitioner under Article 226 sought directions to frame licensing and testing procedures for sharp-edged weapons analogous to certain foreign laws (16 CFR 1500.49, Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982).
The court found no specific legal or fundamental right of the petitioner impaired by any government action or inaction.
Earlier Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the same petitioner on related relief had been dismissed and alternative remedies were available.
The court held that it cannot be used as a forum to compel executive policy formation, especially where the petitioner’s interest was personal rather than public.
The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. No substantive order was made on licensing or sharpness-testing methods.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Although the operative order does not explicitly list prior judicial precedents, the court’s reasoning reflects established principles:

State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010): Emphasizes limitation of PIL to genuine public interest and not private grievances.
R.K. Jain v. Union of India (1989): Affirms that mandamus cannot be issued for policy formulation by the executive.
Government of India v. Sumangal Services (1989): Distinguishes between judicial review of executive action and judicial intrusion into legislative or policy domains.

These precedents underscore that courts cannot direct governments to frame policy or regulations in the absence of any legal right violation.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning unfolds in the following stages:

Locus Standi and Interest: The court inquired whether the petitioner’s own rights or those of a public class were affected. Finding none, it concluded the petitioner had no standing to seek such relief.
PIL Doctrine: The petition resembled a public interest litigation but was based on personal “interest in manufacturing and selling sharp-edged weapons.” The court reiterated that PILs should address genuine public wrongs, not private or speculative interests.
Policy vs. Judicial Function: The court refused to cross the separation-of-powers line by dictating the content of a licensing regime or a technical testing standard for sharpness, tasks reserved for the executive and legislative branches.
Availability of Alternative Remedies: Reference was made to the earlier dismissal of a PIL by the same petitioner and suggestion that statutory or administrative remedies exist, rendering the writ petition premature.

Impact

The judgment reinforces long-standing limits on judicial intervention in policy-making:

It discourages litigants from using writ petitions as a means to obtain non-justiciable policy directives.
It clarifies that personal or commercial interests cannot be rebranded as “public interest.”
It signals to lower courts and litigants that technical regulatory frameworks (e.g., sharpness testing) fall squarely under executive expertise.
It may deter similar petitions seeking court-mandated regulatory frameworks without demonstrating concrete rights infringements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 226 of the Constitution: Empowers High Courts to issue writs (such as mandamus, certiorari) for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It does not extend to directing the government to formulate policy.

PIL (Public Interest Litigation): A judicial innovation allowing courts to address issues of genuine public concern. Must not be used for private or speculative interests.

Mandamus: A writ ordering a public authority to perform a public duty it is legally obligated to fulfill. It cannot create new duties or policies.

Conclusion

Subhash Singh Tomar v. Union of India serves as a cautionary precedent on the limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The High Court reaffirmed that:

Court-mandated policy formulation is outside judicial competence.
PILs must address genuine public wrongs, not personal or commercial concerns.
A petitioner must demonstrate a clear infringement of a legal or fundamental right to avail extraordinary writ relief.

This order strengthens the separation of powers by delineating the boundary between judicial review and executive policy-making, preserving judicial resources for justiciable controversies.