Courts shouldn’t step into executive’s domain: Supreme Court

Relevance: This article is useful for the topic Separation of Powers of GS-2. Recently, there have been many judgments, directing the executive on policy decisions.

Synopsis:

The pandemic era witnessed judicial intervention in the domain of executive and legislature. However, different benches of the Supreme court had different viewpoints on such intervention.

Background:

• On 14th July,  a bench of the Supreme Court (SC) observed that constitutional courts should restrain from intervening in policy decisions. It also said that it will consider setting out norms on this issue.
• However, a day before, Supreme Court judge D Y Chandrachud took some credit in the court, bringing about a revision in the Centre’s vaccination policy.
  • He said that the state is empowered to take policy decisions on the pandemic. But if this infringes on the constitutional rights of the people, the validity of the policy is subject to judicial review. 

Observations by 14th July Bench:

• It was hearing a plea  filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against the Allahabad High Court (HC). The HC had passed a slew of directions on management of the pandemic in the state and passed adverse observations against the government.
• The SC bench said the intention of the court could not be questioned and there was no doubt it wanted to improve the situation. But the issue was whether interference was at all needed during the period of crisis which should be left to be handled by government and experts.
• The bench deduced that the judiciary should not interfere in the domain of the executive as per the principles of separation of power. There is a demarcation which should be respected by every organ of government.
• The SC bench’s views come in the wake of the court and several high courts taking up issues like oxygen supply and vaccination.

Rationale behind Different opinions by the SC:

• The Supreme Court sits in smaller and co-equal benches. This gives way to the formation of different opinions about the same socio-economic rights and the level of deference that is shown to the executive on issues of policy.