Published on: 12 August 2023 at 17:12 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Jacob Puliyel V. Union of India (2022)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the Constitutional Courts have very limited scope in the Judicial Review. It is held that the Courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision. However, it is held that the Courts can consider
- If it is unconstitutional
- If it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations;
- If the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation;
- If the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy.
23. There is no doubt that this Court has held in more than one judgment that where the decision of the authority is in regard to a policy matter, this Court will not ordinarily interfere since decisions on policy matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned and courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision. However, this does not mean that courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinise whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record.
In Delhi Development Authority (supra), this Court held that an executive order termed as a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas the superior courts may not interfere with the nitty-gritty of the policy, or substitute one by the other but it will not be correct to contend that the court shall lay its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that the impugned decision is a policy decision. Interference therewith on the part of the superior court would not be without jurisdiction as it is subject to judicial review.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
