University of Kerala Vs Council of Principals of Colleges, Kerala & Ors (2010) 1 SCC 353

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as
“32. It may be noted that this Court has on several occasions issued directions, directives in respect of those situations which are not covered by any law. The decision in Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan is one such instance wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court gave several directions to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace. Taking into account the “absence of enacted law” to provide for effective enforcement of the right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment, Verma, C.J. held that guidelines and norms given by the Court will hold the field until legislation was enacted for the purpose. It was clarified that this Court was acting under Article 32 of the Constitution and the directions “would be treated as the law declared by the Court under Article 141 of the Constitution”.
33. Similarly, the Supreme Court issued directions regarding the procedure and the necessary precautions to be followed in the adoption of Indian children by foreign adoptive parents. While there was no law to regulate inter-country adoptions, Bhagwati, J., (as His Lordship then was) in Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs Union of India, formulated an entire scheme for regulating inter-country and intra-country adoptions. This is an example of the judiciary filling up the void by giving directions which are still holding the field.”