Won’t like to decide if there could be better policy,says SC

On Thursday,the court took up the response filed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.

A Bench led by Justice R M Lodha expressed its inclination to close the case as the central government had adduced “complete details”,including the fine print and the proposed benefits of its enactment.

The PIL petitioner,Advocate M L Sharma,however requested an opportunity to reply to the Centre’s affidavit.

He also argued that they should also submit the minutes of the meeting to disclose how and at whose instance the policy decision was taken.

The court gave Sharma time till March 19 to respond but said,“All the details are given in the affidavit. We cannot conduct a roving inquiry if there had to be a better policy or whether the benefits spelt out will be realised or not. We cannot sit over their judgement of assessment of a situation in the matter of a policy decision.”

The Bench expressed satisfaction over the Centre’s response and clarified that it could tinker with a policy decision only as per the constitutional mandates.

“We cannot go beyond the question if a policy is violative of the Constitutional provisions or not. There was a flaw in its legal status and that was duly repaired by bringing in the proper amendments and notifying it in the gazette. We cannot direct the government to disclose the source of information and reasons that prompted them to draft a particular policy,” the Bench said.

The Centre,in its affidavit,has said that the farmers would benefit from the direct sales to organised retailers and the policy would not destroy trade or pose any threat by the mere fact that the capital invested is foreign.