1. Whether the CHH Act passed by the centre is constitutionally valid?

15(3): protective ( Benign discrimination) discrimination in favour of women ,

2. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY CLAUSE

The judicial control is only available in public law remedy. In Shri Anadi Mukta Satguru Shri
Muktajee Vandasjiswami S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 , the
Supreme Court, held that if the rights are purely of private character no mandamus can issue.
If the management of the College is purely of a private body with no public duty mandamus
will not lie. There are two exceptions in mandamus . But when it is absent and when the party
has no equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. The form of the body
concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of duty imposed o
n the body. The duty must be judged in the light of the positive obligation owed by that
person (GOVT) or authority to the affected party (steffi). No matter by what means that duty
is imposed. If the positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that
the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Mandamus is very wide remedy, which
must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not be
allowed to come in the way of granting remedy under Articles 32 of the Constitution.

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 : (1987) 1 SCC 395 , the
Supreme Court observed that.,
"As new situations arise, the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such
new situations. Law cannot afford to remain static. We have to evolve new principles and lay
down new norms which would adequately deal with new problems which arise in a highly
industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference
to the law as it prevails in England or for that matter of fact in any other foreign country. We
no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order."

Right depends on remedies: The Constitution of India has granted certain fundamental rights
to its citizens. Law made by the Parliament and State Legislatures conferred various rights to
the citizens and persons and had also conferred duties and obligations to the various
authorities. The writ jurisdiction is for the enforcement of those rights and the authorities can
be compelled to perform their duties if they make any default. This jurisdiction is available to
keep the powers within their legal limits, so as to protect the citizens and persons against their
abuse.
In re Smalley, (1985) AC 622 , it was held by LORD BRIDGE that, inaction or threatened
action are susceptible to orders of mandamus and prohibition respectively."
In any enactment :

ARTICLE - 32 (REMEDIES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS CONFERRED

BY THIS PART)
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus , prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari ,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
parliament may be law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2). The right
guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

The application for judicial review has to be made in accordance with the provision of Order
53 Rule 1 of
the Rules of the Supreme Court which provides as follows :--
(1) An application for
(a) an order of mandamus , prohibition or certiorari , or
(b) an injunction under section 30 of the Act restraining a person from acting in any office in
which he is not entitled to act, shall be made by way of an application for judicial review in
accordance with the provisions of the order.

Legal right and duty.--

No one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be judicially protected right
before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus . A person can be said to be
aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do
something or abstain from doing something. Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana , AIR 1977
SC 276 : 1977 (1) SCC 486; State of Haryana v.
Subhas Chandra , AIR 1973 SC 2216 : (1974) 3 SCC 220

The existence of sufficient interest to apply for Mandamus depended on evidence of the
alleged breach of duty or illegality which when related to the position of the claimant made it
clear that he had individual interest to pursue and protect. This test is wider than that laid
down in some earlier cases that the applicant must have a specific legal right for the
performance of duty. It may be assumed that all earlier cases excepting locus standi remained
authoritative but some denying it may be but some have to be reconsidered in the light of the
decision of the House of Lords. House of Lords agreed that an application for judicial review,
standing and merits may have to be considered together under the Supreme Court Act. Court
will ordinarily hear the application for leave ex parte . The applicant may make prima facie
case for hearing at the later hearing, Court will consider the legal and factual context
including the nature of the duty and the breach in the order to decide whether the applicant
has sufficient interest in the matter.

In R. v. Felixstowe Justice Ex parte Leigh , (1987) 1 All ER 551, a journalist applied for
mandamus for disclosure of the identity of the justice and a declaration that the policy of
withholding the names of justice was contrary to law. It Vwas held even though journalists
have no sufficient interest in the disclosure of the name of the justice for the purpose of
articles, he was held to have sufficient interest because of the public interest in the
maintenance and preservation of open justice in Her Majesty's Court which was the matter of
vital concern in the administration of justice to seek a declaration. Principles of open justice
require that those who did justice
should be known to the public and accordingly the power of the Majesty to control their own
proceeding did not entitle them to sit anonymously or to withhold their identity from the
public and the members. The rules about standing have been lowered and it has been held that
Television Viewer in R. v. Independent Broadcasting Authority , Ex parte -- Whitehouse ,
(1984) Times 14th April, community smokers in the case of Holmes v. Checkland , (1985)
Times 15th April even pressure group may have sufficient interest whether or not the applicant
is directly affected.
Ordinarily writ jurisdiction is not available in cases where there are adequate and specific
legal remedy provided under the statute. Mandamus and Certiorari will be subject to exercise
of sound judicial discretion and will not be issued where there is another adequate and
specific legal remedy competent to afford relief upon the same subject-matter. Mandamus is a
supplementary remedy to be used where a party has a clear legal right and no other
appropriate redress to prevent a failure of justice. It does not supersede legal remedies
provided under the statute but rather supplies the want of such remedy. It is confined to cases
where the law has established no specific remedy. In order that existence of another remedy
may be sufficient to warrant a Court in refusing to grant Mandamus , the case being
otherwise proper, existing remedy must be specific and adequate. It is the inadequacy, not the
mere absence of all other legal remedies, and a danger of a failure of justice without it,
that must usually determine the propriety of the writ, so where none but specific relief will do
justice, specific relief should be granted, if practicable; and where a right is single and
specific it is usually practicable. Another remedy should be able to accomplish the same
purpose as would Mandamus if granted, that is, place the complainant in the same position as
he was before the act complained of. The other remedy, would supersede Mandamus , must
be competent to afford relief upon the very subject-matter of the application and be equally
convenient, beneficial and effective.