1 SCC 271 - relied on. .CENSUS COMMISSIONER v. R. KRISHNAMURTHY 465 & Ors. v. R. KRISHNAMURTHY 469 [DIPAK MISRA & Ors.

• (2014] 11 S.C.R. 463 CENSUS COMMISSIONER & OTHERS v. R. KRISHNAMURTHY (Civil Appeal No. 9996 of 2014) NOVEMBER 07, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA, ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] Administrative law: Policy decision - In an earlier writ petition regarding the appointment and reservation for Scheduled Tribe, the High Court passed directions to the Census Department to take all such measures towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country at the earliest and in a time bound manner so as to achieve the goal of social justice in its true sense - Census Department was not arrayed as a party in that writ petition - In the instant writ petition, the High Court referred to the said directions and allowed the writ petition - Held: High Court had travelled beyond the /is in the first round of litigation - High Court could not have issued such a mandamus commanding the Census Department to carry out a census in a particular manner and it erroneously tried to inject the concept of social justice to fructify its direction - Earlier order was not binding on the Census Department as it was not party to the said /is - High Court's order was wholly unsustainable - Census Act, 1940 - s.8. Policy decision - Interference by courts, scope of. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:

The High Court in the earlier judgment had issued the direction relating to carrying of census in a particular manner by adding certain facets though the lis A B c D E F G 463 H 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 11 S.C.R. , . A was absolutely different. The appellant, the real aggrieved party, was not arrayed as a party-respondent. The issue was squarely raised in the subsequent writ petition where the Census' Commissioner was a party and the earlier order was repeated. There can be no shadow of s doubt that earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was not a party to the said lis. [Para 19] [476-F-G] Tata Cellular V. Union of India 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 122: (1994) 6 SCC 651; H. C. Ku/want Singh and Ors. \/. H. C. C Daya Ram & Ors. JT 2014 (8) SC 305; Khetrabasi Biswa/ V. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors. 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 8: (2004) 1 SCC 317; Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia V. Board of . Revenue 1963 Suppl. SCR 676: AIR 1963 SC 786; Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1985 (1) SCR 216:(1984) 4 SCC 251; Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State D bf W.B. & Ors. 2008 (15) SCR 194:(2009) 1 sec 768 - relied on.

The direction was issued wit~out any deliberation and being oblivious of the principle that the courts on : E very rare occasion, in exercise of powers of judicial review, would interfere with a policy decision. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. The Census Act, 1940 has conferred F power on the Central Government to issue Notification· regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and the Central Government has issued Notifications, and the competent authority has issued directions. [Para 21] [477-E-G] G