Constitution doesn't permit the court to direct or advise the Executive

Do not interfere in policy decisions, Supreme Court tells High Courts. Legal Correspondent The Hindu Thursday, Jul 20, 2006 Constitution does not permit court to advise Executive in policy matters. Government alone can decide which policy should be adopted. Court cannot interfere even if second view is possible.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts against interfering with the Executive's administrative action, as the scope of judicial review is limited in questioning such decisions. "The correctness of the reasons which prompted the government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation," said a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker.

"While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the Executive in matters of policy or to sermonise on any matter, which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the Executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power."

Justice Pasayat, writing the judgment, said the scope of judicial enquiry should be confined to whether the government decision was against any statutory provision or violative of the fundamental rights of citizens. The Bench said, "even if the decision taken by the government does not appear agreeable to the court it cannot interfere." Policy decision must be left to the government. It alone could decide which policy should be adopted after considering all points from different angles. In matter of policy decisions, the court should not substitute its own judgment for the Executive's judgment.

In assessing the propriety of the government decision, the court could not interfere even if a second view was possible. The Bench quoted a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, which said "the problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is the best is not always discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review."

The Bench was dismissing petitions filed by the Ekta Shakti Foundation and two others questioning the legality of certain terms in inviting offers for supplying nutrition to children of anganwadis in Delhi under the Integrated Child Development Services programme, launched in 1975.