Can Courts Enter Executive Arena With Suggestions On Pandemic Management? Supreme Court To Examine

"The limited question we want to ask is that how far can Constitutional Courts go in such matters", said the Supreme Court on Wednesday in Uttar Pradesh Government's challenge to the Allahabad High Court order of 17 May wherein a slew of directions had been given to tackle the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari presided over the matter and directed the Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta to address them on the boundaries within which Courts can function. The matter will now be heard on 12th August. COURTROOM EXCHANGE In today's hearing, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that the matter was being heard by the Acting Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. Earlier, he had made a request before the Supreme Court to pass a direction that cases of public importance should be dealt with by the Chief Justice's bench of the High Court. The Supreme Court had refused to pass such a direction, saying it was the prerogative of the Chief Justice to assign the roster; however, the top court observed that it is desirable that such matters are handled by CJ's bench.Taking note of the fact that the case is now being handled by the Chief Justice's bench, the Supreme Court bench asked the SG if he wanted to proceed with the matter. The SG replied that he was seeking to set aside the impugned order as well.To this, the Bench responded that a new Order of 21 May eclipsed the impugned High Court order and there was no requirement to set aside the same. Justice Saran further directed the SG - "We want your assistance in whatever subsequent orders have been passed by the High Court. If you can have them procured and compiled and place them on record. We have not stayed the matter before the High Court, and as they are taking it up, we don't want to get into it", said the Court. Both Justice Saran and Justice Maheshwari then went on discuss whether the High Court could pass directions or give suggestions which mimicked Executive decisions. "Even the suggestions which are amounting to Executive decisions, we have to ask whether the High Court can enter that arena. However, laudable the objectives are, when there are demarcations, we have to respect that. How far should the "Ram Bharose" comment be justified? How many beds are to have oxygen, how many ambulances are to be there, we don't want to comment on that", remarked the Bench. They further stated that suggestions regarding purchase of vaccines from international markets etc. were not practical and it was an arena which could not be transgressed by the High Court. "If any area is earmarked for the Executive – these are times of crisis where everybody has to take note of what is required to be done by whom and where. You may be having 100s of suggestions, but it cannot result in a Court order. We are Constitutional Courts. Of course, there cannot be a straitjacket, but there are boundaries as well. How far can we go? We want you to assist us on this issue, Mr. Gupta", informed the Top Court. The Amicus submitted to the Court that an Affidavit had been filed by the Uttar Pradesh Government wherein they had stated that they would ensure the availability of certain facilities, and that the Courts should have the ability to ensure the implementation of the same. The Bench agreed and stated, "The limited question we want to ask is that how far can Constitutional Courts go in such matters. Collective efforts are needed during times of crisis, but good intent itself does not give everybody a right to enter into a different arena". Matter will now be heard on 12th August. BACKGROUND On May 23, the Supreme Court stayed the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court on May 17 for upgrading the medical facilities in the state of Uttar Pradesh on a war-scale footing in wake of the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic. A Vacation Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai had stayed the order after hearing the submissions made by Solicitor-General for India Tushar Mehta on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta was appointed the amicus-curiae. The Allahabad High Court, while considering a suo moto case taken to deal with COVID issues, had passed a slew of directions on May 17 in relation to providing ambulances with ICU facilities in all villages, making oxygen beds available in all nursing homes, upgradation of medical college hospitals in the state etc., on an urgent basis in a time-bound manner considering the COVID second wave. The Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that the High Court's directions, though well-meaning, were difficult to implement. The SG pointed out that the High Court had directed that every village in the state must be provided with 2 ambulances with ICU facilities within one month. This direction, the SG said,...

Can Courts Enter Executive Arena With Suggestions On Pandemic Management? Supreme Court To Examine

Radhika Roy

"Collective efforts are needed during times of crisis, but good intent itself does not give everybody a right to enter into a different arena”, the Court orally said.

Tags