2025:JHHC:31245-DB -1 of 3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 2236 of 2024 Imran Hussain, aged about 39 years, Son of Md. Musuk Shekh, Resident of Paranpur Koyla Bazar, P.O.- Paranpur Koyla Bazar, P.S.-Rajmahal, Dist.-Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi. 4. The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi represented through its Chairman, office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargaon, Namkum, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, Dist.-Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S.-Sahibganj, Dist.-Sahibganj. … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G-II For the JAC: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate --------- 09/Dated: 09.10.2025 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral) 1. The instant W.P.(PIL) has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- “For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding upon the respondents in particular respondent no. 2-3 to take steps for constitution of Jharkhand State Madrasah Service Commission for the purpose of transparency in the Madrasah Education in view of the establishment of the commission in different states i.e. West Bengal, Odisha and Assam. AND For issuance of further writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to respondent no. 5 restraining the managing committee of Madrasah for recruitment of teachers till the establishment of the Jharkhand State Madrasah Service Commission. And 2025:JHHC:31245-DB -2 of 3- For direction to respondent no. 2, 4 and 5 to consider the public petition including the petitioner to cure the irregularities and nepotism by the Madrasah Committee for proper education in Madrasah. AND For direction upon the respondent no. 3 to seize the power of all the Managing Committee of Madrasah to recruit the teachers by publishing any advertisement till the establishment of the Jharkhand State Madrasah Service Commission.” 2. In our opinion, the prayers made by the petitioner in the instant petition require us to give directions of a legislative or executive nature which can only be given by the legislature or executive. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club Vs. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 SCC 683, the judiciary cannot encroach into the domain of the legislature or executive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that under our Constitution, legislature, executive and the judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation and ordinarily it is not proper for any of these 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. It is stated that judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government and the doctrine of separation of powers need to be followed. It was reiterated that the Court must not embarrass administrative authorities. 3. Thus, it is settled that the Court has to apply the principle of restrain, acknowledging and respecting the constitutional limitation upon the judiciary to recognize the doctrine of separation of powers and restrain itself from entering into the domain of the legislature. After all, the Constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. The legislature, executive and the judiciary have to 2025:JHHC:31245-DB -3 of 3- function within their own sphere demarcated under the Constitution. These organs are quite functional and exercise its discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. The concept of constitutional limitation is a facet of the doctrine of separation of powers though we may clearly state that there can be no straitjacket approach in the sphere of separation of powers when the issue involved democracy, essentially morality. But nonetheless, one thing is certain that the Court cannot direct the State Government to promulgate a legislation even though the Court has the constitutional power and authority to interpret the constitutional provision as well as statutory provision which power has been constitutionally entrusted to the legislature and the Courts are not entrusted with the power to enact the law or direct the legislature for enactment of any law. 4. Having said so, we find the instant W.P.(PIL) to be misconceived and the same is dismissed. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 09.10.2025 N.A.F.R. APK/VK.