Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act  ||  Meghalaya High Court: In a Sacred Relationship, Husband is the Property of the Wife and Vice Versa  ||  Kar HC: Disciplinary Authority Must Look Into Past Conduct of Workman While Passing Dismissal Order  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Independent Evidence of Accomplice Sufficient in Itself to Sustain Conviction    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved