Supreme Court: Marking a Document as an Exhibit Does Not Prove its Contents  ||  Supreme Court: Unpaid Consideration Alone Does Not Invalidate a Sale Deed  ||  Bombay HC: Questioning Other Varsities' Degrees Could Cause 'Anarchy and Chaos' in Education System  ||  Allahabad High Court: Regularization Claim Survives Employee’s Death Through Legal Heirs  ||  Allahabad HC: Advocates Failing AIBE Within 2 Years of Provisional Enrolment Can’t Continue Practice  ||  Bombay High Court Directs BCI to Scrutinise and Clear Pending Law College Affiliation Approvals  ||  J&K HC: Circulating WhatsApp Message on Local COVID Cases Does Not Attract Section 505 IPC  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract  ||  Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability  ||  SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training    

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  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved