REDDI, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed as a public interest litigation by two practising Advocates. They pray for issuance of a writ to the respondent-Union of India to recall the declaration of ceasefire in jammu and Kashmir, extended upto 25th February and to declare that such ceasefire is illegal and unconstitutional. The Petitioners submit that unilateral ceasefire and the extension thereof is fraught with dangerous consequences and reflects an attitude of cowardice and an act of absurdity on the part of the Central Government. It is pleaded that "the Government should not go with garlands for peace when the enemies/terrorists are attacking with gun". It is submitted that the ceasefire move will only tend to encourage terrorists and would escalate violence in Kashmir valley rather than paving the way for peace. Such an action on the part of the Union of India, it is pointed out is opposed to rule of law, which is the basic component of the Indian Constitution. ( 2 ) WE are of the view that the expediency or otherwise of enforcing ceasefire for a limited time cannot be judged by judicially manageable standards. The assessment of the need for ceasefire essentially remains within the realm of political executive and the authorities incharge of checking incursions into Indian territory and the violent activities of terrorists outfits. It is essentially a political issue on which, even according "to the newspaper reports furnished by the Petitioners, the decision was taken by the cabinet subcommittee after thorough discussion. There is no reason to think that the concerned army and civilian authorities were not consulted before taking the decision. The pleadings or the materials placed before the Court do not indicate in the least that the decision was mala fide and induced by extraneous considerations alien to peace and security in Jammu and Kashmir. The various averments in the writ Petitions only project the Petitioners, view point. In fact, on an issue like this which is but sensitive and complicated, any attempt at judicial review on the scanty materials placed before us is a futile and legally impermissible exercise. The various averments in the writ Petitions only project the Petitioners, view point. In fact, on an issue like this which is but sensitive and complicated, any attempt at judicial review on the scanty materials placed before us is a futile and legally impermissible exercise. ( 3 ) AS regards the contention that the impugned decision taken by the Central Government is opposed to the concept of rule of law, which is an essential element of our democratic constitution, we must say that the Petitioners have not elaborated how the ceasefire would offend the rule of law. No relevant details in this regard are disclosed. Ceasefire does not necessarily mean that the armed forces and the police personnel will be silent spectators even if law is violated and violent acts are indulged in nor can it be said that the security and the integrity of the nation is forsaken by announcing ceasefire in an apparent bid to foster an atmosphere of cordiality as a step to restore the peace. What exactly is the ambit, complexion and dimensions of ceasefire is not discernible from the pleadings in the Writ Petition or the newspaper/magazine reports filed there with. The averments are vague and sweeping and as already observed reflects a view point in respect of a complex issue of socio-political nature. The Court is ill-equipped to embark upon an investigation into the need and expediency of the policy decision taken to announce the ceasefire for a limited duration, with the avowed intention of finding a solution to the long-standing problem. ( 4 ) THIS Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. --- *** --- .