Can't create Ram Rajya by merely passing orders: SC

Says capacity to pass orders on such issues was limited

 The Supreme Court on Friday expressed sheer inability to solve all the problems afflicting the country by merely passing orders in order to create “Ram Rajya”.

“Do you think one order passed by us will establish Ram Rajya in the country? Will our one order lead to the eradication of corruption? Had our orders run so effectively, then we would have passed orders directing that no one should indulge in corruption or crime,” a three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice T S Thakur observed.

Hearing a PIL by an NGO through its chairman Dhanesh Ishdhan for the removal of encroachments from footpaths across the country, the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said the court’s capacity to pass orders on such issues was limited.

“We want to do various things, but we cannot do so as our capacity is limited,” the bench added. The petitioner-in-person insisted that people were crying for help because civic as well as the police authorities, drawing huge salaries, were not able to do anything to remove encroachments from footpaths, lanes and roads.

“Our intentions are as good as yours, but we can’t go on clearing roads,” the bench said, directing the petitioner to educate people on the removal of such obstructions.
The court also told him that as the Delhi high court was already hearing a similar plea, he could approach that court, being a resident of the city.

With regard to others cities, the bench suggested he should not be bothered. The petitioner, however, continued arguing.

He said it was a gross violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens and if the Supreme Court did not intervene, who would provide relief to the general public.

This angered the bench, which dismissed the petition. But on persistent requests by the petitioner that the previous Chief Justice of India, H L Dattu, had admitted his petition igniting hopes among the people, Justice Thakur agreed to consider the petition in February, a month after his retirement. This  evoked laughter from the advocates present in the courtroom.