SC: Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Follow if an Officer is Discharged on the Same Charge  ||  SC Clarified the Distinction Between Arbitration “Seat” And “Venue” While Summarising Key Principles  ||  Supreme Court: Wife and Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry-Giving Based On Her Complaint  ||  SC: Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the Ground of Order II Rule 2 Bar  ||  Supreme Court Has Issued an SOP Prescribing Strict Timelines For Filing Legal Aid Appeals  ||  Madras HC: Dhurandhar 2 Release Cannot be Stalled Due to Objections From a Small Section  ||  Delhi HC: Lokpal May Form Prima Facie Opinion Before Show Cause Notice Without Prior Hearing  ||  Bom HC: Family Courts Cannot Casually Order a Spouse’s Medical Examination to Assess Mental Health  ||  Bombay HC: Child Care Leave Protects Motherhood and Denial Violates Rights of Mother and Child  ||  Supreme Court: Amalgamating Company Loss Cannot be Set Off Against Amalgamated Income    

S.P. Mediratta and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2181-DB) - (High Court of Delhi) (19 Mar 2024)

Courts ought not to encroach upon the domain of the legislature or the executive and issue directions which impose financial burden on the State

MANU/DE/2035/2024

Civil

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants impugning an order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Petition filed by the Petitioners/Appellants praying that they should be granted benefits of the Central Government Health Scheme, 1954 ["CGH Scheme"], was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

The Court cannot interfere with policy decisions taken by the Government merely because it feels that a different decision would have been more fair or wiser. The assessment and evaluation of policies fall outside the purview of judicial review, unless those policies contravene statutory or constitutional provisions or are deemed arbitrary. It is trite that, where the government possesses the competence to formulate policies, it can only be challenged when such policies are arbitrary. Therefore, the legitimacy of a public policy can only be contested if it transgresses specific legal frameworks.

Thus, the decision to not extend the benefits of the CGH Scheme to the Appellants is a policy decision keeping in mind various factors including economic ones. Due to resource constraints including financial and logistical, the Respondents have been unable to extend benefits under the CGH Scheme to the Appellants. From an examination of the record, this does not appear to be arbitrary. Thus warrants no interference by this Court.

It is settled law that, Courts ought not to encroach upon the domain of the legislature or the executive and issue directions which impose financial burden on the State. There is no infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : SCHEME   BENEFIT   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved