Judgment :- 1. This is an application for the issue of a writ or other direction prohibiting the 2nd respondent, the State of Kerala, from taking any steps for the formation of the proposed Malappuram District; and for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent, the Union of India, to issue appropriate direction under Art.355 of the Constitution to the State Government prohibiting it from forming the proposed district. The petitioners pray for a declaration that the division of the territories specified in S.5 (1) (b) of the States Reorganisation Act into the present three Districts and changing the name of the Malabar District are invalid, and also for a further declaration that carving out the proposed district from out of the territories comprised is the Malabar District namely the territories specified in S.5 (1) (b) of the States Reorganisation Act is illegal. 2. The petitioners contend that the formation of the District of Malappuram would violate their fundamental right under Art.14 of the Constitution, that the formation of a District with a Muslim majority would perpetuate the hegemony of the Muslims to the detriment of the Hindu minority in the area, that it will ultimately lead to the formation of Moplastan, that it will lead to communal disharmony and breach of public order, that history will repeat itself in that there will be a recrudescence of orgies of vandalism, that the formation of the district will be contrary to the provisions of S.5 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act and that at any rate the formation of the district without the authority of law by an executive fiat would be unconstitutional. 3. It is hard to understand the petitioners' contention that the formation of a new district with a Muslim majority will violate the fundamental right of the petitioners under Art.14 of the Constitution. 4. S.5 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act says that the territories specified in clause (b) of sub-section (i) shall form a separate district to be known as Malabar district in the State of Kerala. 4. S.5 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act says that the territories specified in clause (b) of sub-section (i) shall form a separate district to be known as Malabar district in the State of Kerala. The contention of the petitioners is that because Parliament has said in S.5 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act that the territories specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall form a separate District known as Malabar District in the State of Kerala, it is not open to the State Government to carve out a new District from out of the territories specified there. I think the State Government has power to form a new District from out of the territories specified for administrative purposes. S.5 (2) is no bar to the formation of the proposed district. 5. It was contended that the formation of the proposed district can only be on the basis of a law and that the executive power of the State does not extend to the formation of a district without the sanction of a law in that behalf. I do not know whether I should make a pronouncement upon this submission, for I cannot anticipate that the State Government will form the proposed district without the sanction of law if such sanction is necessary. Even if the Madras District Limits Act is not applicable to the Malabar area I am not satisfied that in the exercise of its executive power the State Government cannot form a new district for administrative purposes. 6. As regards the argument that the formation of the new district will violate the provisions of Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution, I am unable to see any substance in it. 7. The issues raised in this case are mainly of a political nature and therefore not meet for judicial determination. The basis of the petition is not any private or personal wrong to the petitioners, but a wrong to be suffered by a section of the people What locus standi the petitioner have in this matter is not clear. This controversy concerns matters that brings the court into immediate and active relation with party contests. From the determination of such issues courts have traditionally kept aloof: And I think it is hostile to a democratic system to involve the judiciary in the politics of the people. This controversy concerns matters that brings the court into immediate and active relation with party contests. From the determination of such issues courts have traditionally kept aloof: And I think it is hostile to a democratic system to involve the judiciary in the politics of the people. Judicial intervention in an essentially political contest will lead only to undesirable consequences. The very division of the powers between the three branches of the government indicates that some line must be drawn between political and judicial questions. Deference to the other departments also makes it necessary that the judiciary should stay clear of certain territories. Courts sit to decide on stormy as well as on calm days. And issues should not be put into political rather than judicial category merely because they are trouble some or charged with emotion. It is not the whim of an individual judge but a "demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department, or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non judicial discretion or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due (to) coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question" that should decide whether the issues are political and so non justiciable. (See Baker v. Carr 7. L ed. 2 d. 663 at 686) 8. It was contended that it is the duty of the Union Government under Art.355 of the Constitution to issue a direction to the State Government not to form the new District as its formation would lead to internal disturbance and may cause external aggression. Art.355 runs as follows: "It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution." I do not think that the duty placed upon the Union Government under the Article is justiciable in a court of law, as it is only a political duty. That a constitution may have many commands that are not enforceable by courts because they fall outside the conditions and purposes that circumscribe judicial action is clear from the following cases. Luther v. Borden 12 L. ed. 581,Kentucky v. Dennaision 16 L. ed 717 and Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon 223 US. 118. See also Art.362 and 363 of the Constitution. The Constitution has left the performance of many duties in our governmental scheme to depend on the fidelity of the executive and legislative action and ultimately, on the vigilance of the people in exercising their political rights". (See Colegrove v. Green 90. L. ed. 1432, 1436). I do not think that I can enforce the duty of the Union of India under Art.355 even if it be assumed that there is such a duty in this case on the part of the Union, by the issue of a writ of mandamus. I dismiss the petition. Dismissed.