Why can’t states issue executive instructions: HC

During the resumed hearing of a petition filed by advocate Salil Sabhlok — in connection with the appointment of Harish Rai Dhanda as the Punjab Public Service Commission chairman — the full bench asked the Haryana government what steps it had taken to frame a statute and whether the direction of the Supreme Court in a case pertaining to the appointment of members and chairman of a commission was “not a law”. It also questioned Punjab and Haryana governments whether they had acted on the Supreme Court directions and framed regulations.

The bench further asked whether it could direct the states to frame the guidelines,if it did not wish to frame the guiding principles. It also remarked that it did not wish to lay down the guidelines and would be more than happy if the states would do it on their own. “But inaction on the parts of the states was compelling it to adjudicate the issue,” the court observed.

Hawa Singh Hooda,Advocate General (Haryana) had to field a volley of questions during the resumed hearing of the petition. He insisted that the person to be appointed should be of impeccable integrity,lest there was a moral values crisis and most of the institutions crumbled. The high court may not have the jurisdiction to lay down the guidelines,he added.

The Advocate General further said that the Supreme Court refrained itself from issuing guidelines and was of the opinion that the issue fell in the domain of legislature and not judiciary. In case of constitutional appointments,the discretion is of the legislature,he said.

Claiming that guidelines would tantamount to amending the Constitution,Hooda added that in case certain guidelines were framed,these would not attain the character of a statute. As such their violation would not give right to a person to challenge it,rendering it meaningless,he said.

The case will now come up for resumed hearing on August 8.