9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Judicial power over administrative inaction. 2. Constitutional obligation to provide roads. 3. Separation of powers and judicial review of administrative actions. Summary: Issue 1: Judicial Power over Administrative Inaction The Supreme Court reviewed whether the High Court had the authority to issue directives to the State Government regarding the construction of a road, given the provisions of Articles 202 to 207 of the Constitution. The High Court had directed the Superintending Engineer to proceed with the road construction and requested the State Government to consider allocating additional funds. The Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary should not interfere with the functions of the executive and legislature, and any court direction must align with constitutional provisions. The Court concluded that the High Court's order did not overstep its jurisdiction, as it only suggested the State Government consider additional funding without mandating it. Issue 2: Constitutional Obligation to Provide Roads The petitioners, poor Harijans from Himachal Pradesh, claimed that the lack of a usable road violated their rights u/s Article 21 and Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acknowledged that access to roads is essential for life and quality of life, especially in hilly areas, and that the State has a constitutional obligation to provide such infrastructure. The Court noted that the State Government had sanctioned funds for the road construction and that the High Court's directive aimed to expedite the process within the sanctioned limits. Issue 3: Separation of Powers and Judicial Review of Administrative Actions The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of separation of powers, stating that each government branch must function within its domain. The judiciary can review administrative actions but should do so cautiously and not substitute its priorities for those of the executive. The Court cited previous judgments to support this view and concluded that the High Court's order was within its supervisory role, aiming to energize the executive without overstepping its bounds. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave, affirming the High Court's order with clarifications. The Court directed that the matter be placed before the High Court only to inform it of the steps taken, emphasizing that further action should be left to the executive and legislature's discretion. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial restraint and the need for cooperation between the branches of government to address public needs effectively.
|
