NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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