New Delhi, Dec 2 The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it "cannot legislate laws after laws", as it "is not for wisdom of the court to make legilsation".
The remarks from the top court came as it declined to entertain a plea, citing the Hathras rape and murder case, seeking reforms in law concerning rape and grievous injuries.
A bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana asked the petitioner to file a representation in the matter before the Centre.
A PIL was filed in the top court by advocates Kirti Ahuja and Kanika Ahuja seeking reforms in the laws concerning rape and grievous injuries.
The petitioners have contended that the rape victims should have the right to appoint private counsels for fighting the cases on their behalf. They also suggested an amendment should be made to section 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) 1973.
The petitioner's counsel contended before the court that after the Hathras incident many people have searched for the victim on Google and brought to court's notice that victim's photograph has also been uploaded on the internet.
Justice Ramana observed that these issues have nothing to do with law, as people want to do such things. "There is Right to freedom of speech and expression. Already there are enough laws for this. It's unfortunate that these incidents happen and people don't follow law," said the bench.
The counsel argued that the trials of such cases are also not taking place in the time-bound manner.
The bench said "We can't legislate laws after laws. It's not for wisdom of this court to make legislation." The bench reiterated that the petitioner should make a representation before the Government of India.
The bench appreciated the petitioners' for bringing up the issue before the court, but emphasized that court can't make legislation.
The top court said: "We appreciate the efforts of the petitioner. At the same time this court can't make legislation and can't pass direction but petitioner is at liberty to make representation."
The bench said it hopes and trust that the government will consider it and take necessary action.
The petitioner argued it is better to bring in few reforms in the state facilitated public prosecution system functioning to speed up the trials in such matter.
( With inputs from IANS )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor