- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court dismisses plea for Whistle Blowers Act
Delhi High Court dismisses plea for Whistle Blowers Act
The bench cited the Industrial Disputes Act that was amended more than two decades ago but was not passed by the Parliament
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction upon the Parliament to bring into force the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the enactment of the law and bringing it into force were the sovereign functions to be performed by the Parliament or the State Legislature under the Constitution of India. Hence, the courts could issue no direction, much less a writ of mandamus.
The petitioner, Dr. Mohammad Ajazur Rahman, represented by advocate Payal Bahl had submitted that the WBP Act was passed by the Parliament almost eight years ago. However, it was yet to be brought into force.
She added that the Act provided a framework to investigate corruption and misuse of power by public servants while protecting the whistle-blowers. Hence, its implementation was imperative.
Appearing for the Union, Assistant Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, submitted that the petitioner had made a representation to them and the same had been duly replied in December 2021.
At this, the bench remarked, "The law is nothing but the desire of the people and they (the Parliament and the State Legislature) represent the desire of the people. It is in the wisdom of the Parliament and the legislature to bring into force the enacted law. If the Parliament thinks this is not the proper time to bring a law in force..."
The bench cited the example of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was amended more than two decades ago but in the wisdom of the Parliament, was not brought into force.
No writ can be issued to the Parliament to enact these amendments, the bench said.