Not within Courts’ realm to review Policy Decisions, Supreme Court upholds Haj Policy 2019-23

The Supreme Court today upheld the Haj Policy 2019-23 while reaffirming that it is not within the realm of courts to review policy decisions taken by the Government..A Bench of Justices AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer, and MR Shah upheld the conditions concerning Haj Group Organisers for Haj of 2019-23..It held that the scope of judicial review in matters of policy is limited and the Court cannot direct Executive to alter its policy to what “appears better to Courts.”.“It is not within the realm of the courts to go into the issue as to whether there could have been a better policy and on that parameters direct the Executive to formulate, change, vary and/or modify the policy which appears better to the court. Such an exercise is impermissible in policy matters.”.The Court also clarified that when it comes to questions regarding social, economic, and commercial matters, the government is empowered to make policy decisions which are based on several factors. The Courts are neither equipped to entertain counter-claims made to such policy decisions nor are they empowered to substitute government’s decisions..“It is well accepted principle that in complex social, economic and commercial matters, decisions have to be taken by governmental authorities keeping in view several factors and it is not possible for the courts to consider competing claims and to conclude which way the balance tilts. Courts are ill equipped to substitute their decisions.”.Based on the rules and restrictions imposed by Saudi Arabia and India’s bilateral agreement with Saudi Arabia in that regard, the government had formulated the Haj policy. Certain conditions were imposed on the Haj Group Organisers and Private Tour Operators (PTO)..The policy laid down eligibility criteria and registration of HGOs and PTOs for ferrying Haj pilgrims from India to Saudi and back to ensure a complete package..The Petitioners in the case were aggrieved by some of these eligibility conditions imposed by the Executive and, therefore, approached the Court to examine the same..The Court observed that Courts can interfere in a policy decision only when the decision is found to be against the provisions of the Constitution or is found to be manifestly arbitrary..“The scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters. It is only when a particular policy decision is found to be against a statute or it offends any of the provisions of the Constitution or it is manifestly arbitrary, capricious or mala fide, the court would interfere with such policy decisions.”.Finding no such issue in the present case, the Court upheld the Policy..Read the Judgment.