1999 (3) TMI 672 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of policy decisions favoring public sector manufacturers for purchasing medicines.
2. Alleged creation of monopoly in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Legitimacy of executive orders under Article 162 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Policy Decisions:
The petitioners challenged the policy decisions of the States of Punjab and Rajasthan, which directed that certain medicines used in government hospitals and dispensaries be purchased only from public sector manufacturers. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed this policy, while the High Court of Rajasthan upheld it. The Supreme Court examined whether such policies violated constitutional provisions.

2. Alleged Creation of Monopoly in Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g):
The appellants argued that the policies created a monopoly in favor of public sector undertakings, violating Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business). The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the policies did not create a monopoly as they only directed the purchase of certain drugs from specified manufacturers, without precluding other manufacturers from selling their products to other customers. The Court noted that the demand for drugs in government hospitals and dispensaries is only a fraction of the total market demand. Therefore, the policy did not amount to a monopoly under Article 19(6).

3. Legitimacy of Executive Orders under Article 162:
The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the State to issue such policy directions under its executive power derived from Article 162 of the Constitution. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab and Naraindass Indurkhya v. State of M.P., which supported the view that executive orders can impose restrictions in the absence of specific legislation.

Judgment Analysis:
The Supreme Court supported the High Court of Rajasthan's decision, stating that the policy did not create a monopoly and was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court cited several precedents, including:
- Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab: No fundamental right guarantees the approval of specific products by the government.
- Naraindass Indurkhya v. State of M.P.: The State can restrict the sale of certain products through executive orders.
- Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of M.P.: Preference to cooperative societies for fair price shops was upheld as reasonable classification.
- Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. v. Govt. of Kerala: Preference to government companies was not discriminatory.
- Krishna Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala: Public interest can justify preference to cooperative institutions or public sector undertakings.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the Rajasthan High Court's decision and allowed the appeals against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision, thereby upholding the policy decisions of both states. The Court concluded that the policies did not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 19(6) of the Constitution and were within the executive powers of the State.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the policy decisions directing the purchase of certain medicines from public sector undertakings did not create a monopoly, were not discriminatory, and were within the executive powers of the State. The appeals against the Rajasthan High Court's decision were dismissed, and the appeals against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision were allowed, thereby upholding the policy decisions of both states.