Writ of Mandamus Cannot Be Issued: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Reconstitution Of Committee On Uniform Civil Code

The Petitioner had approached the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, direction or order to the respondent – State of Gujarat to reconstitute the Committee with the fresh members those who are having knowledge and experience over the subject law and further seeking directions upon the respondents to adopt a consultative process involving all religious and cultural communities before any move to the Uniform Civil Code.

The Single Bench of Justice Niral R. Mehta held, “...this Court is of the firm opinion that once the Committee has been constituted purely by executive order under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, in absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary, selection of particular members for constitution of Committee would be within the absolute domain of the State Government and thereby, it is perfectly justified for the State authorities to select the members of the Committee and for which, Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued.”

Advocate Zamir Z Shaikh represented the Petitioner, while Advocate General Kamal Trivedi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Chief Minister, on February 4, 2025, in a Press Conference, announced the constitution of a Committee consisting of five members to consider whether a Uniform Civil Code is necessary for the citizens of the State of Gujarat. The said Committee was to submit its report within a period of 45 days. The said period of 45 days, thereafter, was extended from time to time. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid constitution of the Committee by the respondent – State of Gujarat, the petitioner approached the Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that a Writ of Mandamus is the tool in the hand of the Constitutional Court, by which the Court can keep a check and balance on the executive functions of the State, more particularly, those that are prescribed under the statute. “Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Constitutional Courts are having wide powers, however, such powers are expected to be exercised in a case where the fundamental rights of the citizens are violated and / or against the State actions where the statutory duties are not performed. Thus, it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself with regard to the facts and circumstances which justifies exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, it said.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the constitution of the Committee was not by way of any provisions of the statute. The said Committee did not have any statutory character, and the constitution of the said Committee was purely an administrative decision. The Bench stated, “Thus, in absence of any statutory provisions, the authority cannot be expected and / or directed to act in a particular manner. In other words, when the constitution of Committee is not back by any statutory force, in that event, selection of members of the Committee cannot be subjected to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

“The Court, by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the State authorities to select members in a particular manner. Any direction and / or order, in that regard, would be said to be unjustified and unwarranted interference in a purely administrative affairs of the State authorities, and thereby, this Court would not like to go in the area, which is absolutely within the domain of the State Government on its administrative side”, it noted.

The Bench also highlighted the fact that Article 162 of the Constitution permits the State Government to take administrative decisions and thus, there shall not be any judicial review of purely administrative decisions taken under Article 162 of the Constitution of India by the State authorities.“ By constituting a Committee, it cannot be said that prejudice is caused to any class of people when more particularly it is always open for any class of people to make representation espousing their views on the Uniform Civil Code to the Committee so constituted. Under the circumstances, I see no good reason to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a realm of administrative decisions taken under Article 162 of the Constitution of India by the State of Gujart”,it mentioned.

The Court thus dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Abdul Vahab Mohammed Shabbir Sopariwala v. State of Gujarat (Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 4967 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Zamir Z Shaikh

Respondent: Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, Government Pleader Gursharansingh H Virk, AGP Dharitri Pancholi, AGP Vinay Vishen

Click here to read/download Order