I.
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE
The special leave petition, which has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of
Anania, encompasses a substantial question of law in regards to the judgement passed by the
High Court of Nandora. Taking in mind the fact that the Supreme Court in itself has the
power to correct the wrongs or overlook any matter in the court irrespective of its jurisdiction
entitles the petition to be maintainable.
1. It is humbly submitted that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union of Anania
is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of Anania. The Supreme Court
possesses wide discretionary powers to grant special leave to appeal from any judgement or
order passed by any court or tribunal in the country.
2. This Court in the case of N. Suriyakala Vs. A. Mohandoss and Others [1]observed as
under: "In this connection we may clarify the scope of Article 136. Article 136 of the
Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables
the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India in
its discretion." [2]
3. It is submitted that the present case involves exceptional circumstances warranting the
exercise of this Hon'ble Court's discretionary powers under Article 136. The High Court's
judgment has far-reaching implications for disaster management policies and the separation
of powers, thus necessitating the Supreme Court's intervention.
(1.1) case involves substantial question of law of general importance
4. It is submitted that the present case involves substantial questions of law regarding the
interpretation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, in relation to emerging climate-related
disasters and the extent of judicial intervention in executive policy-making, particularly in
disaster management. These questions have not been conclusively settled by the Supreme
Court and are of significant public importance, given the increasing frequency and severity of
heatwaves in Anania.
5 Sir Chunilal V. Mehta And Sons, Ltd vs The Century Spinning And Manufacturing[3]: “A
substantial question of law is one which is of general public importance or which directly
and substantially affects the rights of the parties and which have not been finally settled by
the Supreme Court, the Privy Council or the Federal Court or which is not free from
difficulty or which calls for discussion of alternative views.”
6 In Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai [4], this Court
observed as under :-
"The discretionary power of the Supreme Court is plenary in the sense that there are no
words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. The very conferment of the discretionary
power defies any attempt at exhaustive definition of such power. The power is permitted to be
invoked not in a routine fashion but in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of
law of general public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before the
Supreme Court shocks the conscience. This overriding and exceptional power has been
vested in the Supreme Court to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of
justice in the Supreme Court in exceptional cases only when special circumstances are shown
to exist."[5]
(1.2) The SLP Raises Significant Constitutional Questions Involving the Separation of
Powers and Judicial Overreach
7. The present case presents crucial constitutional questions regarding the interpretation of
Articles 14, 19, 21, and 50 of the Constitution of Anania. The maintainability of this SLP is
justified under Article 136, as it raises substantial legal questions that directly concern the
balance of powers between different organs of the State. The Supreme Court has consistently
held that Article 136 should be invoked in cases where there is a need to clarify the
boundaries of judicial, executive, and legislative functions.
8. Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga[6] :
“……Question is whether the new policy which is restricted by the financial constraints of
the State to the rates in Aiims would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
So far as questioning the validity of governmental policy is concerned in our view it is not
normally within the domain of any court, to weight the pros and cons of the policy or to
scrutinise it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of
varying, modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever sound and good reasoning, except
whether it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of
law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances on facts,
law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would
be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal
based on facts set out on affidavits. …” [7]
9. It is respectfully submitted that the present case falls within the appropriate limits for the
exercise of this Hon'ble Court's power under Article 136, given the significant public interest
involved and the need to clarify the boundaries of judicial intervention in executive
policy-making.
II. STATE INACTION IN ADDRESSING HEATWAVES AS A NOTIFIED DISASTER
UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ARTICLES 14, 19, AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF ANANIA
Using the term such as inaction completely disregards the efforts that have been put in by the
State. The said efforts not only helped the citizens cope better with the unprecedented
heatwaves , which can be seen as an upliftment of the right to life under Articles 14, 19, and
21 of the Constitution of Anania rather than a violation of the said rights. Hence it is argued
that (2.1) that the state action in addressing the heatwaves was sufficient, and (2.2) that it
doesn’t amount to a violation of the right of life under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution of Anania.
(2.1) that the State action in addressing the heatwaves as a notified disaster under the
disaster management act was sufficient.
10. Although the Ananian Constitution does not explicitly provide an explicit disaster
management section, it does place numerous responsibilities on the government across
multiple articles to ensure that people have access to assistance during times of disaster. The
following provisions codify this responsibility.
a. Article 21 - Right to Life: obliges the government to take reasonable measures to ensure
the safety, security and welfare of affected individuals following a disaster. This includes and
obligates governments to respond to disasters through - making immediate relief available to
survivors, conducting rescues, providing medical treatment, and providing rehabilitation to
avoid loss of life and minimize suffering of affected persons.
b. Article 38 - Promotion of the People’s Welfare: Article 38 of the Directive Principles of
State Policy requires the government to strive to promote the welfare of the people. This
obligation extends to situations of emergency, to alleviate human suffering, ensure social
justice, and provide adequate resources and support to affected populations.
c. Article 51A - Fundamental Duties of Citizens: While this article highlights the
responsibilities of citizens primarily, this framing question provides clear and obvious needed
collaboration of government agents to prepare for crises and provide effective response relief
efforts during normal times. The government is obliged to create the conditions for citizens to
take a collective and cohesive approach to fulfil their role in disaster preparedness and
recovery.
11. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Anania's Constitution imposes a
moral obligation on the state to safeguard the lives and welfare of its citizens during
catastrophes through actions ranging from urgent relief and rehabilitation to long-term
readiness and reconstruction. The concepts of equality, social justice, and public welfare
underpin the state's responsibility to properly handle catastrophes.
12. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India[8]: "Governments, both State
and Central, have taken a number of steps to check the pollution and to improve the
environment. Some of the steps taken may be adequate while others may not be so adequate.
But it is not for this Court to evaluate the adequacy or efficacy of the steps taken by the
Government."[9] This statement indicates that the court is reluctant to interfere with the
state's actions or inactions in environmental matters unless they are grossly inadequate.
13. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Anania has instituted a Heat Action
Plan to mitigate the risk posed by increased occurrences of heatwaves related to climate
change and to safeguard its inhabitants. The proposal aims at developing an early warning
system in collaboration with the Ananian Meteorological Department. Such a system is
designed to send timely notifications of heat to help residents and emergency services prepare
for heatwave occurrences. Immediately after the notifications, weather reports and heat alerts
also are disseminated through a variety of media, including television, radio and mobile apps,
to enhance awareness and preparedness.
14. Anania's Heat Action Plan is educational in nature with a focus on public awareness and
outreach to the community. The government has engaged in an educational initiative warning
individuals about the heat-related health hazards and the measures they can take to prevent
such health issues. The Anania Heat Action Plan has a layered alert system, whereby alerts
indicated by an orange or red designation can be issued, each of which signifies varying
intensities of heat. An orange alert, which is one of the most important alerts, is issued when
temperatures are expected to surge and rise considerably, typically between 41°C - 43°C .
When an orange alert is issued, the government implements a public health campaign urging
residents to stay hydrated and forgo outdoor activities during peak heat intervals.
15. Anania hen's red warning is for the maximum level of heat emergency, which occurs
when temperatures are above 43 °C. This red warning firmly denotes a dire threat to
individual health and safety requiring immediate and significant action to prevent extreme
heat and effects on health and safety . During a red warning, the government will take the
necessary actions to mobilize all resources to mitigate the extreme impacts of heat. Example
of actions would include water and rehydration salts, and ensuring the continued supply of
energy and water to meet increased demands for energy for cooling and hydration. The public
warning, include stay inside, limited activity and pallor of symptoms related to heat related
illness, heat stroke and dehydration, which need immediate attention.
16. To ensure that all residents receive the information in a timely manner, orange and red
warnings are provided over several channels: radio, TV broadcasts, and notifications through
smartphone applications. The alarm system is assisted by a coordinated response of health
services, local organisations and disaster management agencies to adequately respond to the
impacts of extreme heat. Anania’s intent is to protect its community from a catastrophic
heatwave by establishing a strong heat action plan, and, more broadly, to pro-actively create a
resilient community that is adaptive to the challenges brought on by climate change.
17. It is most respectfully submitted to this hon'ble court that all appropriate steps have been
taken on the part of the government, its duty to provide to the citizens has appropriately been
implemented by the government by the Governor of the state, and thus the government has
done its utmost to eliminate risk factors that will place at risk the health and well-being of its
affected citizens whose health was directly influenced by the heat wave events.
(2.2) that it doesn’t amount to a violation of the right of life under Articles 14, 19, and
21 of the Constitution of Anania.
18. It is humbly submitted that the Union of Anania's decision not to declare heatwaves as a
notified disaster under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, does not violate the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
19. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India[10]: "The Court is not equipped to take
all the decisions concerning the complex issues relating to forest conservation and
environmental matters. These are essentially matters of policy."[11] This observation
suggests that state inaction in environmental matters may sometimes be due to policy
considerations, which the court is hesitant to interfere with unless grossly unreasonable.
20. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that there is No Violation of Article 14.
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law and protects
against arbitrary discrimination by the State in its treatment of individuals or groups. Here,
the State is not discriminating against heatwaves as disasters, and its decision not to declare
heatwaves a disaster is based on a number of rational and legitimate factors, like
administrative consideration, financial concerns, and constraints on the structure of systems,
and not from arbitrary or discriminatory intent. The State's decision is based on a balancing
act of extending limited resources to address a number of competing crises, such as floods
and earthquakes, which cause said crises immediate devastation to human life and property.
21. There is a Rational Basis for Distinction. The distinction between heatwaves and other
disasters must be reasonably assessed, a process that is considered rational, where
distinguishing classifications made by the State are constitutionally permitted, as long as the
classifications are legislative classifications made on the basis of an intelligible differentia,
which comparably serves an immediate objective. The State faces certain challenges about
concretely measures the long-term and gradual nature of the damage caused by heatwaves in
the same sense as it would floods and earthquakes whose destructive nature is immediate and
visible day-to-day. As a result, the State prioritizes floods and earthquakes over heatwaves as
an allocation of State resources to reasonably balance in consideration of an immediate and
rationalized obligation as opposed to arbitrary action under Article 14.
22. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that there is No Violation of Article 19:
Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom: Article 19 does guarantee a limited number
of freedoms, for example, the right to freely practice a profession, trade, or occupation.
Petitioners might make a limited argument the workers are under an unconstitutional
restriction of their right to earn a livelihood and freely move about based on the State's failure
to proactively act to protect down from heatwaves. It is simply not appropriate to limit the
governments intentional allocation of investigative methodologies and resources to
appropriately combat the effects heatwaves have on human life. The government government
has taken substantial measures & intervened in anticipation of that annual public health crisis
by preparing and launching a Heat Action Plan, public health campaigns, early warning, and
advisories.
23. There are reasonable restrictions in the interest of public welfare. Although the
petitioners may argue that their freedom under Article 19(1)(g) has indeed been restricted, the
State is permitted to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public welfare. The very
fact of the Heat Action Plan, which seeks to educate citizens on preventative measures ,
provides rehydration salts to secure their safety, and raises public awareness about water
rationing, evidences the State's effort to protect the public interest (in this case, public health
and safety) without overly interfering in the individual freedoms of citizens. The mere fact
that the state government has not categorized heatwaves as a disaster under the Disaster
Management Act does not limit the right to practice a profession or to move about freely,
when the government continues to issue advisories and inciates programs designed to keep
the public safe.
24. It is humbly submitted that there has been No Violation of Article 21: Right to Life.
Article 21 provides protection of life and personal liberty. The essence of the petitioners’
argument might potentially be that the State of Anania's inaction or inertia may amount to
violating the right to life by degree of exposing the citizenry to serious health risks associated
with heat waves, which is associated with excessive heat. There is a positive obligation of the
State, reflected by its efforts to manage excessive heat through its initiatives, such as the Heat
Action Plan, EWS, and advisories on public health safety designed to protect the public's life.
25. There is Positive Obligation Being Created by the State. The substantive right to life as
expressed in Article 21, includes the right to live a dignified life, and the right to live in a
healthy environment. The Government of Anania has demonstrated its positive obligation
through a range of policies to float heat resistant infrastructure, such as increasing green
spaces, installing cool roofs, or promoting crop suited for drought situations. All of these
measures demonstrate engagement with climate issues in terms of long-term mitigation and
the adaptation demand of climate change and excessive heat.
26. The Union is fulfilling its obligations through its existing programs to address the issue of
excessive heat. A policy decision to not proclaim heat waves as notified disaster does not
negate all proposed interventions on the part of the government to assure a citizen's claim to
life
27. It is respectfully submitted that the Union's Heat Action Plan, which includes measures
such as providing water, rehydration salts, and ensuring stable electricity and water supply
during extreme heat events, adequately addresses these aspects of the right to life.
28. Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India[12]: "It is not for this Court to direct as to how the
municipal authorities should carry out their functions and resolve difficulties in regard to the
management of solid waste."[13] This statement implies that the court recognizes the state's
discretion in environmental management, and mere inaction or inefficiency may not violate
fundamental rights.
29. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case)[14]: "The Courts are not to rush
in where even scientists fear to tread. The Court can only remind the Government of its
Constitutional obligations and expect that it will take necessary steps for cleaning the
environment."[15] This paragraph suggests that while the court can remind the government of
its duties, mere inaction or slow action may not be construed as a violation of fundamental
rights.
30. In light of the above arguments, it is respectfully submitted that the State’s decision not to
categorize heatwaves as a natural disaster under the Disaster Management Act is justified and
does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of Anania. The State has taken
appropriate measures to address the challenges posed by heatwaves through a comprehensive
Heat Action Plan, while prioritizing resource allocation and administrative feasibility. The
existing policies and preventive measures sufficiently protect the fundamental rights of
citizens, ensuring that there is no arbitrary or disproportionate infringement of their
constitutional rights
III. THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ISSUING DIRECTIONS TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO BRING SUITABLE LEGISLATION AND DECLARE
HEATWAVES AS A NOTIFIED DISASTER UNDER THE DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005
The Hon'ble High Court of Nandora's directive to the government to enact legislation
declaring heatwaves as a notified disaster under the Disaster Management Act, 2005
oversteps its constitutional authority. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, it is the
legislature's prerogative to make laws, and the judiciary cannot compel the enactment of
specific legislation. The moot proposition outlines that various government initiatives, such
as the Heat Action Plan, are already in place to address heatwaves, and any further actions
must arise from legislative or executive decision-making. Therefore, the judiciary's directive
constitutes judicial overreach, undermining the established roles of governance in Anania.
Hence, (3.1) there is a clear and definitive Separation of Powers, (3.2) that the said
judgement is a clear Judicial Overreach, (3.3) the Scope of Article 226 and its limitation,
(3.4) the Policy Decision-Making is the exclusive domain of executive and (3.5) the
Existing Government Measures are sufficient to handle the said crisis.
(3.1) there is a clear and definitive Separation of Powers
31. The principle of separation of powers, which is firmly entrenched in Anania's
constitutional framework, mandates that the three branches of government (that is, the
legislature, the executive, and the judiciary) operate independently in their defined spheres.
Article 245 of the Constitution vests the power to enact laws solely within the legislature. On
the other hand, the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law, and then applying the law.
32. In the landmark case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of
India[16], the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized: "The doctrine of separation of powers is a
part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Although not specifically mentioned, the
separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary is deeply
imbibed in our constitutional structure." [17]
33. Furthermore, in Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1989) Supp (2) SCC 364,
the Supreme Court held: "Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been
recognized under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity, the Constitution makers have
meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. Legislature, Executive and
Judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution." [18]
34. The High Court’s requirement for the government to pass legislation is tantamount to
interfering with the role of the legislature. Once a policy has been deliberated, it is not the
court’s role to determine whether to declare heatwaves to be a natural disaster for the
purposes of the Disaster Management Act. The court may be worried about the absence of
legal provisions to address heatwaves, but demanding the legislature pass a statute for such
concerns would invade the principle of separation of powers. The court’s role is not to write
law, but to adhere to and interpret existing law.
35. Suresh Seth v. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation[19]: "Under our
Constitution, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have their own broad spheres of
operation. Ordinarily, it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach
upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset,
and there will be a reaction."[20] This emphasizes the importance of maintaining the
separation of powers.
(3.2) that the said judgement is a clear Judicial Overreach
36. To direct the High Court to effect "appropriate legislation" dealing with heatwaves is to
commit overreach of judicial power. The judiciary should not usurp the prerogative of the
legislature to make policy decisions. The application of the moot proposition before the Court
indicates the government has taken a number of steps, including the Heat Action Plan and
information policy campaigns, to address the effects of heat waves. That would indicate that
the executive is on the case - entirely apart from subjectively deeming the phenomenon a
disaster in terms of the DM Act.
37. The role of the judiciary is limited to scrutinizing whether actions are constitutional;
meeting legislative and/or regulatory obligations; and conforming to the ambit of
fundamental rights. In straying further afield than that role to specify a legislative course of
action, the judiciary is intruding on the realm of the legislature. The Hon’ble Court should
refrain from directing the legislature to take a certain policy direction given the fiscal,
environmental and administrative choices such a directive involves.
38. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group[21]: "The
Court cannot substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters."
[22]This emphasizes that the court's role is not to dictate environmental policy or action.
39. Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir[23]: "Although the doctrine of separation of
powers has not been recognized under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the
constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State.
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated
under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another."[24] This case
explicitly warns against one branch usurping the functions of another
40. Manoj Narula v. Union of India[25]: "Judicial review is permissible in exercise of the
constitutional power of the Court. While the Court is not to interfere with the exercise of
power by the executive, at the same time, the Court is duty-bound to ensure that the
democratic set-up under the Constitution is not tampered with."[26] This case defines the
limits of judicial review.
(3.3) the Scope of Article 226 and its limitation
41. The Court's use of Article 226, to issue the directives, is erroneous. Article 226 provides
for the issuance of writs, in relation to the enforcement of fundamental rights, and for other
purposes as well, thereby enabling the judiciary to ensure that action taken by the executive is
in accordance with the constitutional requirements. This article cannot be utilized to direct the
legislature to enact a particular law. For example, Article 21 guarantees the right to life, and
other fundamental rights can be guaranteed through the interpretation of existing laws by the
judiciary; or even through executive action; but does not provide the basis for a direction for
the enactment of legislation.
42. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India[27]: "The jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Article 226 is an important and integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
[...] However, it is equally important to note that this power is not unlimited or
unrestrained."[28] This case explicitly states that the power under Article 226, while
fundamental, is not unlimited.
43. The existing Heat Action Plan and government initiatives under the Disaster Management
Authority demonstrate executive responsiveness to heatwaves. The Court's role, in this
context, would be to ensure these measures are effectively implemented, rather than to dictate
the content of future legislation.
44. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa[29]: "It is now well settled that if a
remedy for enforcement of a right is provided for by the statute, the High Court will not
readily allow the party to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution."[30] This emphasizes that using Article 226 when specific statutory remedies
are available is generally improper.
(3.4) the Policy Decision-Making is the exclusive domain of executive
The government faces a number of administrative and practical difficulties associated with
declaring a heatwave as a natural disaster for Lashele (LW). These difficulties are essentially
legal-related and involve tough decisions about where to put the resources, building and legal
concepts. For example, the aforementioned case presents the difficulties of that kind of a task:
deciding the legal definition of heatwaves, the need of multiple fiscal priorities, and the safe
infrastructure in the developing area of Anania. The judicial branch lacks proper tools and
personnel for the making of such decisions, which need intensive research, public
consultation, and expert inputs.
46. Suresh Seth v. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation[31]: "Under our
Constitution, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have their own broad spheres of
operation. Ordinarily, it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach
upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset,
and there will be a reaction."[32] This emphasizes the distinct roles of different branches,
implying that legislation is the domain of the legislature.
47. Moreover, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan[33], the Supreme
Court observed: "It is not for the courts to determine whether a particular policy or a
particular decision taken in fulfillment of a policy is fair. The court is not a approval
authority for the Government's policy decisions." [34]
48. In Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India[35], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "In
the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect in
conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment
of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court is satisfied that there
has been a clear violation of any statutory provision." [36]
49. In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to interfere with the
legislative process by mandating a declaration of heatwaves as disasters under the DM Act.
The executive and legislative branches are better suited to make informed decisions based on
the broader national interest, including the prioritization of resources and the socio-economic
realities facing the country.
50. It is submitted that the Union's decision regarding heatwaves is based on expert judgment
and policy considerations, and there is no clear violation of any statutory provision that
would warrant judicial intervention.
(3.5) the Existing Government Measures are sufficient to handle the said crisis.
51. It is humbly submitted that there have been tremendous efforts on the governmental front
that shall help curb the impacts of heatwaves, including embracing the Heat Action Plan,
education campaigns, public advisories, and infrastructural developments aimed at creating
resilience against extreme heat. All these reflect the front to which the government has
responded to the challenge though haven't almost declared heatwaves a national disaster in
the Disaster Management Act.
52. The judiciary cannot compel further legislation to be passed where the necessary steps
may already have been undertaken to address the effects of heatwaves. It will only undermine
the efforts already going into governance and create a precedent that implies judicial
intervention in all jurisdictions of governance. The focus should instead be on the proper
implementation of policies already put in place.
53. The Hon'ble High Court of Nandora can neither direct the legislature to enact particular
legislation for the phenomenon of heatwaves. The dictum of separation of powers, the
over-reach of the judicial, and the constitutional limitations under Article 226 clearly suggest
that this would be out of the tasks assigned to the Court to interpret laws in place to find ways
for their effective implementation and not to enact fresh legislation. While climate change
and heatwaves produce many issues the solution lies in legislative consideration and
executive action rather than any dictate of a court. The judiciary should not mandate
legislative processes because such mandating is a straight violation of the prime tenets of
governance that lie in the Constitution of Anania.
[1] (2007) 9 SCC 196
[2] Para 8
[3] 1962 AIR 1314
[4] AIR 2004 SC 1815
[5] Para 33
[6] (1998) 4 SCC 117
[7] Para 25
[8] (1996) 3 SCC 212
[9] Para 67
[10] (2002) 10 SCC 606
[11] Para 4
[12] (2000) 2 SCC 679
[13] Para 7
[14] (1998) 6 SCC 63
[15] Para 9
[16] (2016) 5 SCC 1
[17] Para 676
[18] Para 17
[19] (2005) 13 SCC 287
[20] Para 13
[21] (2006) 3 SCC 434
[22] Para 182
[23] (1989) AIR 1899
[24] Para 19
[25] (2014) 9 SCC 1
[26] Para 17
[27] (1980) 3 SCC 625
[28] Para 87
[29] (1983) 2 SCC 433
[30] Para 11
[31] (2005) 13 SCC 287
[32] Para 13
[33] (2011) 7 SCC 639
[34] Para 37
[35] (2002) 2 SCC 333
[36] Para 89
