The Supreme Court of India has set aside the Odisha High Court’s order against allocation of an iron ore mine to steel major Posco. Early this month, the Court dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre’s policy to allow FDI in retail. It has also refused to entertain a petitioner’s plea against the Vedanta-Cairn India deal as the CAG report indicated that losses would accrue from it. The Court has struck a balance by allowing the executive to make policy decisions and putting a brake on judicial activism. Institutional propriety has thus been heeded. The government can go by the will of the elected legislature. The Apex Court can only interfere if a policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, arbitrary, irrational or implies abuse of power. In the Vedanta case, the Court drew a distinction between a mala fide deal and a risky one. The final say in such matters depends on parliamentary scrutiny. The Supreme Court should not admit frivolous objections stalling policy decisions. However, the Court’s powers to throw out such objections are limited.
It is because governments at the Centre and in the states balk at articulate policy pronouncements that evaluation in the judicial sphere becomes necessary. Elected governments often lack conviction or appear inactive and averse to risk. Debates in Parliament are often hindered or made fruitless. That is why in many cases the judge sums up.