New Delhi: Less than a week after the President and the Prime Minister expressed displeasure over repeated interference in policy decisions by the judiciary, Supreme court Said on Monday that the main rule for courts is not to interfere in the economic and regulatory policies of the government.
upholding the decision of reserve Bank of India A Bench of Justices, for denying permission to an Indian businessman, Akshay N Patel, to enter into an agreement to facilitate the export of Chinese-made PPE to the United States D Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath And BV Nagarathna Said that the RBI’s respect for the government policy banning the export of PPE was justified as it was in the public interest to prevent shortage of PPE during the pandemic.
It said that exports from one foreign country to another would not have resulted in shortage of PPEs in India, but would certainly reduce the stock in the world, which could have been grabbed by rich countries for hoarding and for importing PPEs. India’s share could have been reduced for this. from the open market. Patel had challenged the denial of permission to execute bank documents to facilitate the export of PPE from China to the United States as well as give effect to the policy of banning the export of PPE.
Writing the judgment, Justice Chandrachud examined in detail the regulatory role of the RBI along with the economic as well as regulatory policies of the government for the specifics of the role of constitutional courts in issues involving such policies.
Justice Chandrachud said, “It is an abhorrent law that courts do not interfere in the economic or regulatory policy adopted by the government. This lack of intervention is in deference to the wisdom of a democratically elected government, which reflects the will of the people.” ” In the matter, he said, “…the rules introduced by RBI are in the nature of statutory regulation and demand equal level of respect which is consistent with executive and parliamentary policy.”
The three-judge bench observed that constitutional courts must be attentive that “the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution do not become a weapon in the arsenal of private businesses to disable regulation enacted in the public interest.” The issue was specifically mentioned by the President and the Prime Minister, who said that some vested interests were resorting to PILs under the guise of violation of fundamental rights to hinder the economic development of the country.
Interpreting the judgment, a bench headed by Justice Chandrachud said, “The Constituent Assembly debates had carefully curated restrictions on rights and liberties to maintain democratic control over the economy. The regulation must be within the bounds of the statute.” should and should be consistent with. Executive policy. A regulated economy is an important aspect of ensuring the balance between private business interests and the role of the state in ensuring a just politics for its citizens.”
In what may be a delight to the political executive, the Bench observed, “Regulating the economy reflects the compromise between the interests of private commercial actors and the democratic state which represents and protects the interests of the collective world. Scholars across the world have warned. Constitutionalization of an unregulated market against the judiciary.”
“With changes in the economy, the courts must also survive the socio-economic environment. The right to equality and the freedom to do business cannot contain or avoid regulation. In liberalized economies, regulatory mechanisms are represent the democratic interest of setting the conditions of operation for private economic actors,” it said.
The bench said, “this court Does not shirk judicial review when the functions of regulatory bodies are questioned. Instead, it calls for discreet caution in examining the authenticity of such action, and subtle respect for their expertise in framing the rules. Accidental invalidation of regulatory action under the guise of upholding fundamental rights and freedoms, without careful assessment of its objective of social and economic control, would harm the general interest of the public.”
Upholding the RBI’s decision not to allow PPE exports, the bench said, “This Court retains its role as a constitutional watchdog to protect the State from excesses. It will, with due consideration, examine the State’s remedy.” Continuing to exercise its role in determining proportionality. About the nature and purpose of the extraordinary measures implemented to manage the pandemic. The democratic interests that safeguard the public good, the freedom to do business judiciously. To preserve cannot be eliminated, of the few.”
upholding the decision of reserve Bank of India A Bench of Justices, for denying permission to an Indian businessman, Akshay N Patel, to enter into an agreement to facilitate the export of Chinese-made PPE to the United States D Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath And BV Nagarathna Said that the RBI’s respect for the government policy banning the export of PPE was justified as it was in the public interest to prevent shortage of PPE during the pandemic.
It said that exports from one foreign country to another would not have resulted in shortage of PPEs in India, but would certainly reduce the stock in the world, which could have been grabbed by rich countries for hoarding and for importing PPEs. India’s share could have been reduced for this. from the open market. Patel had challenged the denial of permission to execute bank documents to facilitate the export of PPE from China to the United States as well as give effect to the policy of banning the export of PPE.
Writing the judgment, Justice Chandrachud examined in detail the regulatory role of the RBI along with the economic as well as regulatory policies of the government for the specifics of the role of constitutional courts in issues involving such policies.
Justice Chandrachud said, “It is an abhorrent law that courts do not interfere in the economic or regulatory policy adopted by the government. This lack of intervention is in deference to the wisdom of a democratically elected government, which reflects the will of the people.” ” In the matter, he said, “…the rules introduced by RBI are in the nature of statutory regulation and demand equal level of respect which is consistent with executive and parliamentary policy.”
The three-judge bench observed that constitutional courts must be attentive that “the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution do not become a weapon in the arsenal of private businesses to disable regulation enacted in the public interest.” The issue was specifically mentioned by the President and the Prime Minister, who said that some vested interests were resorting to PILs under the guise of violation of fundamental rights to hinder the economic development of the country.
Interpreting the judgment, a bench headed by Justice Chandrachud said, “The Constituent Assembly debates had carefully curated restrictions on rights and liberties to maintain democratic control over the economy. The regulation must be within the bounds of the statute.” should and should be consistent with. Executive policy. A regulated economy is an important aspect of ensuring the balance between private business interests and the role of the state in ensuring a just politics for its citizens.”
In what may be a delight to the political executive, the Bench observed, “Regulating the economy reflects the compromise between the interests of private commercial actors and the democratic state which represents and protects the interests of the collective world. Scholars across the world have warned. Constitutionalization of an unregulated market against the judiciary.”
“With changes in the economy, the courts must also survive the socio-economic environment. The right to equality and the freedom to do business cannot contain or avoid regulation. In liberalized economies, regulatory mechanisms are represent the democratic interest of setting the conditions of operation for private economic actors,” it said.
The bench said, “this court Does not shirk judicial review when the functions of regulatory bodies are questioned. Instead, it calls for discreet caution in examining the authenticity of such action, and subtle respect for their expertise in framing the rules. Accidental invalidation of regulatory action under the guise of upholding fundamental rights and freedoms, without careful assessment of its objective of social and economic control, would harm the general interest of the public.”
Upholding the RBI’s decision not to allow PPE exports, the bench said, “This Court retains its role as a constitutional watchdog to protect the State from excesses. It will, with due consideration, examine the State’s remedy.” Continuing to exercise its role in determining proportionality. About the nature and purpose of the extraordinary measures implemented to manage the pandemic. The democratic interests that safeguard the public good, the freedom to do business judiciously. To preserve cannot be eliminated, of the few.”
,