Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation by three persons Messrs. Gorelal Manishi, Brajendra Kumar Guha and Ram Nandan Prasad. The first of them calls himself a Deputy Convenor of an organization labelled as Lok Adhikar Sangathan, Bihar. 2. Between the organization which they have got together, possibly for the purpose of this petition, and between them, it is their contention that continuing the Bihar Legislative Council is a fraud on the Constitution. The petitioners do not refer to the particular Article of the Constitution of India by which there is a composition of the Legislative Council. This is Article 171. Conveniently ignoring this Article it was so readily pointed that Article 169 desires abolition of Legislative Council in States. 3. It is contended that in 1970 the Bihar Legislative Assembly debated the issue and the motion was carried, to the effect, that the House had resolved that the Bihar Legislative Council be abolished. This was 33 years ago. Then, it is submitted that at the question hour, the Union Parliament also discussed this matter. It is also submitted that by this time an Act of Parliament should have been passed and the Constitution ought to have been amended by abolishing the Bihar Legislative Council; that the Bihar Legislative Council is a drain on the exchequer and its existence is a fraud on the Constitution. 4. Since the petitioners have not taken care even to refer to the particular provision of the Constitution of India by which the Bihar Legislative Council had been established (Article 171), to talk of abolition of it can be strictly in terms of the Constitution. 5. The High Court is hardly the forum where this debate ought to take place. The High Court is also not about to commit a mistake in encouraging this debate nor make a further mistake by issuing a prerogative writ that it issues to the Speaker of the Bihar State Legislative Assembly or for that matter the Speaker of the Union Parliament. This is to be avoided unless the liberty of a citizen is in issue. 6. Clearly if a resolution had been passed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly in 1971 it was more than 30 years ago and these petitioners could have addressed so many governments which may have come to power but chose to bring this petition in 2003. This is to be avoided unless the liberty of a citizen is in issue. 6. Clearly if a resolution had been passed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly in 1971 it was more than 30 years ago and these petitioners could have addressed so many governments which may have come to power but chose to bring this petition in 2003. The court is not putting the statute of limitation in the face of the petitioners but to rake up a non-existent issue after 33 years when the fundamental right of no person has been infringed cannot be an occasion to issue a writ. If the High Court errs in issuing a writ on the petition to the Speaker of the Legislature, whichever State or Union, there is an age old rule of judicial propriety known as the Bradlaugh doctrine. This is expressed in the case of Bradlaugh V/s. Gossett, 1884 Vol. XII QBD 271. In simple terms this decision lays down the proposition that the courts of the land ought not to venture into affairs which are purely legislative. This will create a conflict. The Legislature may consider a Bill and yet that Bill may not take the shape of an Act. If governments change the business of the legislature may be affected according to the policy of the government. 7. The issue plainly is whether the State of Bihar should have bicameral legislature or not. This is for the Legislature itself to decide and, thereafter, in accordance with the Constitution the Parliament may enact a law and yet the Parliament may not. These are no matters tor the Courts, unless the violation of the Constitution of India is shown. 8. This petition is both misconceived and ill-advised. The sooner it is laid to rest the better it would be. 9. Dismissed.