- 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
- 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
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC Disposes Off PIL On Population Control; Refuses To Issue Directions To The Parliament And State Legislatures
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Delhi High Court has disposed off a public interest litigation (PIL) which had sought taking steps to control India’s rising population.In his plea, Bharatiya Janata Party leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay had sought direction to the central government to implement recommendations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, headed by...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court has disposed off a public interest litigation (PIL) which had sought taking steps to control India’s rising population.
In his plea, Bharatiya Janata Party leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay had sought direction to the central government to implement recommendations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, headed by Justice Venkatchaliah, on population control.
The plea sought a two-child norm to be made a criterion to secure government jobs, aid and subsidies, besides withdrawal of statutory rights like the right to vote, contest elections and owning property, for not complying with population control norms.
The plea had urged the court to direct the government to spread awareness about population explosion and provide contraceptive pill, condoms and vaccines to economically weaker sections and below poverty line families. The plea had also sought direction to the Law Commission to prepare a comprehensive report on population explosion within three months.
However, the high court stated that the judiciary cannot perform the functions of the government and that the court does not wish to issue directions to the parliament and state legislatures. It is for the Parliament to enact the law, and set establish the two-child norm, the court stated, adding that the court’s job is merely to interpret the law.