Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.14 seconds)
Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs U.O.I.& Ors on 8 April, 2016 cites

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000

117. However, we hasten to add and do not wish to be misunderstood so as to infer that howsoever gross or abusive may be an administrative action or a decision which is writ large on a particular activity at the instance of the State or any other authority connected with it, the Court should remain a passive, inactive and a silent spectator. What is sought to be emphasised is that there has to be a boundary line or the proverbial “laxman rekha” while examining the correctness of an administrative decision taken by the State or a central authority after due deliberation and diligence which do not reflect arbitrariness or illegality in its decision and execution. If such equilibrium in the matter of governance gets disturbed, development is bound to be slowed down and disturbed specially in an age of economic liberalisation wherein global players are also involved as per policy decision.” Minimal interference is called for by the Courts, in exercise of judicial review of a Government policy when the said policy is the outcome of deliberations of the technical experts in the fields inasmuch as Courts are not well-equipped to fathom into such domain which is left to the discretion of the execution. It was beautifully explained by the Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India[4] and reiterated in Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India[5] in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 476 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Federation Of Railway Officers ... vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2003

117. However, we hasten to add and do not wish to be misunderstood so as to infer that howsoever gross or abusive may be an administrative action or a decision which is writ large on a particular activity at the instance of the State or any other authority connected with it, the Court should remain a passive, inactive and a silent spectator. What is sought to be emphasised is that there has to be a boundary line or the proverbial “laxman rekha” while examining the correctness of an administrative decision taken by the State or a central authority after due deliberation and diligence which do not reflect arbitrariness or illegality in its decision and execution. If such equilibrium in the matter of governance gets disturbed, development is bound to be slowed down and disturbed specially in an age of economic liberalisation wherein global players are also involved as per policy decision.” Minimal interference is called for by the Courts, in exercise of judicial review of a Government policy when the said policy is the outcome of deliberations of the technical experts in the fields inasmuch as Courts are not well-equipped to fathom into such domain which is left to the discretion of the execution. It was beautifully explained by the Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India[4] and reiterated in Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India[5] in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 242 - Full Document

G.Sundarrajan vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2013

“12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere with such matters.” Limits of the judicial review were again reiterated, pointing out the same position by the Courts in England, in the case of G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India[6] in the following manner:
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 95 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Prag Ice And Oil Mills And Anr. Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) [Alongwith Writ ... on 21 February, 1978

We are, therefore, firmly of the opinion that we cannot sit in judgment over the decision taken by the Government of India, NPCIL, etc. for setting up of KKNPP at Kudankulam in view of the Indo-Russian Agreement.” When it comes to the judicial review of economic policy, the Courts are more conservative as such economic policies are generally formulated by experts. Way back in the year 1978, a Bench of seven Judges of this Court in Prag Ice & Oil Mills v. Union of India and Nav Bharat Oil Mills v. Union of India[7] carved out this principle in the following terms:
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 142 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Peerless General Finance And ... vs Reserve Bank Of India And Ors. on 3 May, 1995

“We have listened to long arguments directed at showing us that producers and sellers of oil in various parts of the country will suffer so that they would give up producing or dealing in mustard oil. It was urged that this would, quite naturally, have its repercussions on consumers for whom mustard oil will become even more scarce than ever ultimately. We do not think that it is the function of this Court or of any court to sit in judgment over such matters of economic policy as must necessarily be left to the government of the day to decide. Many of them, as a measure of price fixation must necessarily be, are matters of prediction of ultimate results on which even experts can seriously err and doubtlessly differ. Courts can certainly not be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts.” Taking aid from the aforesaid observations of the Constitution Bench, the Court reiterated the words of caution in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited v. Reserve Bank of India[8] with the following utterance:
Calcutta High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 82 - Full Document
1   2 Next