Ashwini Kumar Vs. Union of India - (High Court of Delhi) (18 May 2021)

Court will not ordinarily interfere in policy matters as the same are based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned in the respective fields

MANU/DE/0928/2021

Civil

Present Public Interest Litigation is filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to the Respondent to expand the scope and ambit of Scheme for Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles in India Phase II and include and encompass Hydrogen energic infrastructure and fuel cell electric vehicles to be eligible for incentive under the Scheme, by including "establishment of hydrogen refuelling stations" in Clause 8(b). Directions are also sought to the respondent to include buses (including hydrogen fuel cell) and four-wheelers (fuel cell electric vehicles) in Clauses 15(a) and 15(b) of the said Scheme. Prayer is also made for allocation of part of the unutilized funds from the aforesaid Scheme for promoting and incentivizing demand for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles and construction and operation of hydrogen refuelling stations.

The Scheme, FAME India Phase II, was framed by the Government to address problems of fossil fuels and is a policy decision. It is no longer res integra that, a Court will not ordinarily interfere in policy matters as the policies are framed based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned in the respective fields. Courts are not equipped with the necessary expertise to substitute their own views and direct formulation of policies tailor-made to suit the requirements of the Petitioner in a given case.

While exercising the power of judicial review, it must be kept in mind that, Court cannot direct, advise or sermonise the executive in matters of policy framing, which is purely the domain of the executive under the doctrine of separation of powers. This should, however, not be understood to mean that, a Court would abdicate its responsibility to scrutinize and test, whether the policy in question is unreasonable, unfair or violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in case it is so found, it can certainly be struck down.

Looking at the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the clear separation of powers under the Constitution of India, at this stage, present Court can only direct the Respondent to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the same in accordance with law, relevant rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the case. Petition is disposed of.

Tags : SCHEME CLAUSE INCLUSION