New Delhi: Exactly a day later Supreme court judge D Y Chandrachud Took some credit in court for bringing amendments to the Centre’s amendment vaccination policyA Supreme Court bench on Wednesday said that constitutional courts should be restrained in policy decisions and even said that it will consider setting the criteria.
hearing a petition filed by Government of Uttar Pradesh against Allahabad High Court A bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari, which had passed several directions on the management of the pandemic in the state and adverse comments against the government, asked whether the HC should have entered the arena.
The bench said that the intention of the court cannot be questioned and there is no doubt that it wants to improve the situation but the issue was whether there was any need for intervention during the period of crisis which is controlled by the government and experts. should be done. scheduled caste The views of the bench came in the wake of issues like oxygen supply and vaccination being raised by the court and several high courts.
“However good (is) the intention and purpose, when there is demarcation, we have to respect the demarcation. We have to be very careful..,” the bench said, adding that the judiciary should intervene in the sphere of executive as per the principles of separation of power Shouldn’t.
“Everyone needs to be aware of what is to be done by whom. How far does the Constitutional Court go in such a case. We want to focus on that aspect,” it said.
Differences between various SC benches on various issues, including the pandemic, appeared on Monday with Justice Chandrachud saying that the state has the right to take policy decisions on the pandemic, but if it violates the constitutional rights of the people, there is no need for legitimacy. The validity policy is liable to judicial review. However, since the Indian Supreme Court sits in smaller and co-equal benches, it gives way to controversy about the interpretation of equal socio-economic rights and the level of respect shown to the executive on policy issues, he said.
He also quoted that a bench of SC refused to entertain a public interest litigation For payment of minimum wages for migrant workers during the lock down but another bench took suo motu cognizance and passed directions. “While the above examples show how the Supreme Court differed in its approach to intervene in the functions … it also indicates that the smaller and co-equal bench of the Court offers the possibility to read the law differently. ,” They said.
hearing a petition filed by Government of Uttar Pradesh against Allahabad High Court A bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari, which had passed several directions on the management of the pandemic in the state and adverse comments against the government, asked whether the HC should have entered the arena.
The bench said that the intention of the court cannot be questioned and there is no doubt that it wants to improve the situation but the issue was whether there was any need for intervention during the period of crisis which is controlled by the government and experts. should be done. scheduled caste The views of the bench came in the wake of issues like oxygen supply and vaccination being raised by the court and several high courts.
“However good (is) the intention and purpose, when there is demarcation, we have to respect the demarcation. We have to be very careful..,” the bench said, adding that the judiciary should intervene in the sphere of executive as per the principles of separation of power Shouldn’t.
“Everyone needs to be aware of what is to be done by whom. How far does the Constitutional Court go in such a case. We want to focus on that aspect,” it said.
Differences between various SC benches on various issues, including the pandemic, appeared on Monday with Justice Chandrachud saying that the state has the right to take policy decisions on the pandemic, but if it violates the constitutional rights of the people, there is no need for legitimacy. The validity policy is liable to judicial review. However, since the Indian Supreme Court sits in smaller and co-equal benches, it gives way to controversy about the interpretation of equal socio-economic rights and the level of respect shown to the executive on policy issues, he said.
He also quoted that a bench of SC refused to entertain a public interest litigation For payment of minimum wages for migrant workers during the lock down but another bench took suo motu cognizance and passed directions. “While the above examples show how the Supreme Court differed in its approach to intervene in the functions … it also indicates that the smaller and co-equal bench of the Court offers the possibility to read the law differently. ,” They said.
.