SANTHOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not think that any justiciable question under Art.226 of the Constitution arises in this Original Petition. The question raised may, perhaps, have political overtones. The petitioner cannot seek any relief by way of mandamus or other prerogative writs issued from this court for a matter which is not in the permissible scope of judicial review. As far as possible, even in policy matters of State, the court seldom scrutinies the wisdom of the Government exercising its power of judicial control on administrative matters. The court cannot in the discharge of its functions, correct matters which are purely political.

(2.) The petitioner submits that he is an unemployed youth aged 25 years. His case is that one political party which is a constituent of the Left Democratic Front, which has formed the Government, has held out a promise in its election manifesto jobs for unemployed in the State. The petitioner's grievance is that promise made by that party has not been fulfilled, even though that party has been voted to power by the people to form the Government.

(3.) A breach of a promise in a manifesto is not a matter for this court to consider under Art.226. If a political party has given such a promise, perhaps, it may have a moral obligation to the voters to act according to the promise held out to the people. But, this court cannot issue a mandamus to discharge this obligation. Normally, this court can issue a writ of mandamus only when a statutory functionary or the Government declines to discharge its statutory obligations even after repeated demands. I can never see any statutory obligation on the part of the Government in regard to the promise made in the manifesto.