Writ Of Mandamus Not A Remedy Against Private Wrongs, Court Cannot Interfere With Private Body's Internal Management: Delhi HC
Observing that the writ of mandamus is not a remedy against private wrongs, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a writ's scope is against the private authority which might be performing a public duty limited to the enforcement of such public duty. Further adding that the Court cannot interfere with the internal management of a private body in a writ of mandamus, a division...
Observing that the writ of mandamus is not a remedy against private wrongs, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a writ's scope is against the private authority which might be performing a public duty limited to the enforcement of such public duty.
Further adding that the Court cannot interfere with the internal management of a private body in a writ of mandamus, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"It is well settled that a writ of mandamus lies only for the purpose of a public or statutory duty. Writs are issued for the performance of public duties. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority but such private authority must be discharging a public function and the right sought to be enforced must be a public duty."
The Court thus dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000 an appeal claiming that Agence France Press, a French private international news agency, constituted by the Act of Parliament of France and being a news agency, performing a public function and was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Court.
The Court was of the view that neither was Agence France Press created by any law passed in India nor was it entrusted with functions which can be termed as 'Governmental' or closely associated therewith, having public importance or being fundamental to the life of people.
"Respondent No.2/Agence France Press was constituted in France and as far as India is concerned, Respondent No.2/Agence France Press is only a private entity," the Court said.
The appeal was filed against the order of Single Judge which had dismissed the petition filed by one Prakash Singh laying allegations of racial discrimination and harassment against Agence France-Presse against him. The Court dismissed the plea as not being maintainable.
The single judge had observed that a newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function.
In appeal, the division bench ruled that the complaint against the said news agency was not in the course of its performance of its duty as a news agency.
It also noted that the said complaint against Agence France Press, which is a foreign entity, was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction as there was an employer-employee relationship which by no jurisdiction can be termed as a public function.
"The Respondent No.2/Agence France Press cannot be termed as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Respondent No.2/Agence France Press is an entity of France and even if the contention of the Petitioner is taken into account that the said news agency has been constituted by the Act of Parliament of France and is engaged in the activity of public function, it still cannot be termed as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India," the Court concluded.
Further observing that the appeal was a frivolous petition which resulted in wastage of precious judicial tim, the same was thus dismissed with Rs. 50,000 cost.
Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 719