SC TO EXAMINE IF LIMITS CAN BE PLACED ON HC ORDERS IN TIME OF CRISIS
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is all set to consider what limits can be placed on decision-making powers of high courts to ensure that in times of crisis, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the personal views of judges do not form part of judicial orders which are hard to be implemented by the executive.
The top court was faced with a situation arising out of an Allahabad high court judgment that remarked on May 17 that the Uttar Pradesh’s medical system was “ram bharose” (left to the mercy of God), and directed the state to provide two ambulances with ICU facility in all 97,000 villages, nursing homes in the state to be equipped with ventilator support and BiPAP machines, import vaccines, and upgrading medical colleges, among other directions.
Although this order was stayed by the Supreme Court on May 21, the bench of justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari on Wednesday said, “All of us have good personal suggestions during a crisis. But we have to ask ourselves if those suggestions can result in an order passed by a constitutional court. Will not the courts be entering into the executive arena?” The bench said it will consider this aspect on August 12 and asked the court-appointed amicus curiae (friend of court) senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta to present suggestions on that date. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, was also asked to assist.
The court did not doubt the good intentions of the high courts in passing orders to serve public welfare. “Howsoever laudable be our intentions, it doesn’t give anybody a right to enter into the executive arena. There are norms within which every constitutional body has to work. The executive has benefit of expert knowledge. If there is anything wrong, the judiciary is there… In a crisis, everybody has to be cautious of what needs to be done and by whom.”
Mehta was of the view that the matter could be sent back to the high court, where the issue pertaining to management of Covid-19 in the state is being heard by a bench headed by the acting chief justice.