The Supreme Court in the case Seemab Qayyum v Union Of India observed and has refused to entertain the writ plea moved seeking the issuance of mandamus to the Union Government to notify Part 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
The bench comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra in the case observed and has dismissed the matter wherein the court stated that the issue is settled in the Supreme Court decision in the case AK Roy v. Union of India that such a direction cannot be issued by the Court.
The bench headed by CJI remarked that the said court cannot issue the direction that a law which has been passed by Parliament has to be notified.
The bench of CJI while dismissing the application remarked that, you cannot issue mandamus that the parliament shall notify the statute.
The Supreme Court in the case AK Roy held that the writ of mandamus as stated under Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be issued to the Central Government for enforcing Section 3 of the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978 even though the Amendment Act received the assent of the President.
In the present case, the petition filed pertains to the seeking of directions in the nature of mandamus to the parliament to issue enforcement notification for Part 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, IBC which relates to insolvency resolution and bankruptcy for individuals and partnership firms.
Therefore, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was introduced in Lok Sabha in December 2015 and was passed by the parliament on 05.05.2016. Thus, the Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, IBC section 79 to section 187 deals with provisions relating to Bankruptcy for Individuals and partnership firms.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ plea.
