STATE OF HlMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS v. SATPAL 661 SAINI [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] have been moved by what it described as the plight of"a large population A ofnon- agriculturistHimachalis". The High Court indicated the rationale underlying its direction in the following extract which is taken from the judgment impugned :- "There is perpetual litigation under Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. A large population of non-agriculturist B Himachalis has been deprived of their right to purchase property in the State without the permission of the State Government though they are residing in the State of Himachal Pradesh for decades together. There is a sense of alienation amongst the nonagriculturist Himachalis. They are integral part of the State of c Himachal Pradesh and have a sense of belonging to the State". 5. The State Government is aggrieved by the mandamus which has been issued by the High Court to amend the provisions of law. The submission of the State is that the above directions trench upon the sovereign legislative power of the state legislature. D 6. The grievance, in our view, has a sound constitutional foundation. The High Court has while issuing the above directions acted in a manner contrary to settled limitations on the powerof judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. A direction, it is well settled, cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a law. The power to enact legislation is a plenary E constitutional power which is vested in Parliament and the state legislatures under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution. The legislature as the repository of:the sovereign legislative power is vested with the authority to determine whether a law should be enacted. l;'he doctrine of separation of powers entrusts to the court the constitutional function of deciding upon the validity of a law enacted by the legislature, where a F challenge is brought before the High Court under Article 226 (or this Court under Article 32) on the ground that the law lacks in legislative competence or has been enacted in violation of a constitutional provision. But judicial review cannot encroach upon the.basic;.constitutional function which is entrustedto the legislature to determine whether a law should G be enacted. Whether a provision of law as enacted subserves the object of the law or should be amended is a matter of legislative policy. The court cannot direct the legislature either to enact a law or to amenda law which it has enacted forthe simplereason that this constitutional function lies in the exclusive domain of the legislature. For the Court to mandate an amendment of a law- as did the Himachal Pradesh High Court- is H
