In dealing with policy matters, law courts ought to give enough latitude to the government. That is the message of the Supreme Court in the case of chairman and managing director B.P.L Ltd. vs S.P. Ghuraja and Ors, where allotment of land to a company at a relatively lower rate through a one-window clearance system was challenged in a public interest litigation. The petitioners had succeeded in the high court, but the Supreme Court overturned this judgment in appeal. “A decision which has been taken after due deliberations and upon due application of mind cannot be held to be suffering from malice in law on the ground that there has been undue haste on the part of the state and the board,” the court held.

Where the legislatures leave the task of bringing into force a statute to the government, then the discretion vests in the government, and the courts should not normally interfere in the decision-making process in that respect. In the case of Common Cause vs Union of India, the Supreme Court rejected the plea of Common Cause, a social action group, which had applied to the court for implementation of the Delhi Rent Control Law, which was passed by the Parliament in 1995 and had received assent of the President also in that year, but the statute was yet to be made operational. The apex court’s order in effect was that where the legislature has delegated the power to the executive to bring into force, it would be up to the government to fix the date as to when the law would come into effect.

Though not as high-profile as it is in the US, the tobacco industry is facing problems in the European Union as well. A directive issued by the EU largely regulating the sale of tobacco products has been upheld by the European Court of Justice, before whom it was pleaded by the tobacco industry that it interfered with the choice of citizens of individual countries. The Court laid greater stress to the issue of public health, and largely upheld the validity of such regulation.

SOLON