Ground Report

The Supreme Court of India, in a land mark judgment pronounced in an appeal, restrained the lower courts from interfering with the policy decisions of the Governments. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, C.K.Thakkar and L.S.Panta pronounced the judgment in a case involving the policy decision of the U.P Government. The case of the U.P Government was that it had created a new district called Baghpat as a policy decision for the sake of administrative convenience.

Acting on a petition challenging the notification of the U.P Government for the creation of the new district ‘Baghpat’, the Allahabad High Court asked the State Government to reconsider its decision. In its appeal against the judgment, the Government said that the High Court’s approach was erroneous. In matters of policy decision, such as creation of a district or state, the High Court should not have interfered, that too wholly on irrelevant grounds.

On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that a district should not be created routinely and the High Court took note of several factors.

The Supreme Court held that in the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government, so long as infringement of fundamental right is not shown, courts will have no occasion to interfere. The court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters.

Justice Passayat has said that in matters of policy decisions, the scope for interference is extremely limited. In assessing the propriety of a decision, the court should not interfere even if a second view different from that of the government was possible.

Allowing the State’s appeal the Bench said that the cabinet decision was taken nearly eight years ago and it appears to be operative. That being so there is no scope for directing reconsideration.

The above said decision once again re-affirms Supreme Court’s faith and resolve that the courts should not overreach in the name of judicial activism and they should confine themselves within their constitutional limits.