Image Courtesy:newindianexpress.com
The Supreme Court asserted that it does not intend to second guess the Centre but it shall continue to intervene to determine whether policies conform to the standards of reasonableness.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Ravindra Bhat and Nageswara Rao has established the court’s jurisdiction in keeping a check on the policies of the Central government while dealing with the pandemic.
The Centre in its May 9 affidavit had presented points to discourage judicial intervention of the court in what a policy matter which should be left to the discretion and wisdom of the Centre. The affidavit further states that the executive has “room for free play in the joints” while dealing with a pandemic and that the steps taken by it need to be appreciated from a short-term and holistic perspective even if they may turn out to be imprudent in the long run.
The affidavit further states that judicial review is warranted only on account of manifest arbitrariness and interference of courts is uncalled for when the government is operating on expert medical and scientific opinion to tackle a medical crisis. The affidavit also goes so far to state that any “over-zealous judicial intervention, though well-meaning, in the absence of expert advice or administrative experience may lead to unintended circumstances where the executive is left with little room to explore innovative solutions.”
The court found the need to address this in a separate section of the order under the heading “separation of powers” whereby it stated that separation of powers does not result in courts lacking jurisdiction in conducting a judicial review of these policies. The court pointed out that the Constitution does not envisage courts to be silent spectators when constitutional rights of citizens are infringed by executive policies. The court also emphasised that “Judicial review and soliciting constitutional justification for policies formulated by the executive is an essential function, which the courts are entrusted to perform.”
The court also cited observations made by the Supreme Court in United States while over ruling policy decisions, where the US court had stated that “a public health emergency does not give Governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists” and stated that while it respects the judgment of experts, the Constitution cannot be put away even during a pandemic.
The court reiterated that it does not intend to second-guess the wisdom of the executive but the court still has the jurisdiction to “determine if the chosen policy measure conforms to the standards of reasonableness, militates against manifest arbitrariness and protects the right to life of all persons.”
The court stated that it is exercising a “dialogic jurisdiction” where various stakeholders are provided a forum to raise constitutional grievances with respect to the management of the pandemic. On a parting note, the court put forth that this is an open court judicial process, and it would conduct deliberations with the executive where justifications for existing policies would be elicited and evaluated to assess whether they survive constitutional scrutiny.
The next date of hearing is June 30.
The complete judgment may be read here:
Related:
Why can’t allocated budget of Rs.35,000 crores be used for vaccinating 18-44 year olds: SC asks Centre
Centre’s paid vaccination policy for 18 to 44 years, prima facie arbitrary and irrational: SC
Odisha CM bats for centralised procurement of vaccines