Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

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