The Courts would not interfere with a policy decision unless there is a violation of either Fundamental Rights or any provision of Law

Srishti Sneha | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 10th July 2020

Sunitha Krishnan v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others., WRIT PETITION (PIL).No.118 of 2020 (Telangana HC)

Facts and Contentions

The Petitioner in the present case filed a PIL challenging the decision of the respondents to completely remove the lockdown. It further challenged the government order G.Ms.No 76 General Administration Department 07.06.2020, which permitted the opening of religious places.  The Petitioner submitted that the aforementioned act of the government is arbitrary, illegal, and a violation of Article 14, 19, 20, and 300A of the Constitution.

Through this Petition, the Petitioner asked the court for the following relief,

1. Direct the State Government to extend the lockdown with the aid of paramilitary forces.
2. Equip the public health system, provide safety precautions for the entire medical fraternity and pandemic workers.
3. Open religious places after 15^th July 2020 after reviewing the situation by an expert committee.
4. To provide interim cash transfer of Rs. 7,500 for all White Ration cardholders which shall help them sustain this month.

The Petitioner contended that the easing of the lockdown restrictions has led to a drastic increase in the number of COVID’19 cases. It was also contended that there was no transparency in the media bulletins that were issued by the defendant concerning the tally of cases. The counsel cited various newspapers such as “The Hindu” and “Times of India” and pleaded that if there were to be a sudden surge in the number of cases, the medical system would collapse and may result in a dearth of beds in hospitals, and cause hardship to the public.

Observation and Judgement

The court observed that while dealing with petitions under Article 226 which deals with the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court, its jurisdiction is limited when it comes to interfering with the State’s policy decisions. It further stated that, while relaxing the lockdown the State must have taken various factors into account such as the livelihood of the worker class, economic restrictions, movement restrictions, etc. Moreover, it also stated that the public is under no obligation to visit religious places or any other public place. Furthermore, the government also issues health bulletins cautioning people about the dos and don’ts to follow during the pandemic. The court further observed that the policymaking is the executive’s domain and it shall not interfere with it unless such decisions are made with “malafide, or in gross abuse of power”.

Thus, the court held that as long as the policy decision does not infringe the fundamental rights or any other provision of law, the court shall be wary of interfering with such decisions. If it does so it may transgress into the areas that are earmarked for the executives which shall violate the theory of separation of powers incorporated in the Constitution. Therefore, the Court refused to allow the relief sought by the petitioners as it would amount to “directing the Executive in a matter of policy.”