Madras High Court Declines to Interfere in Viksit Bharat Act, Citing Union Policy Domain
The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling on Thursday, firmly stated that the Viksit Bharat - Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajveevika Mission (Gramin) Act represents a policy decision of the Union government, and there is no scope for judicial interference in such matters. The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, delivered these observations while hearing a petition filed by an advocate challenging eight specific provisions of the VB-G-RAM-G Act.
Petitioner's Allegations of Anti-Federal Provisions
The petitioner argued that the provisions of the act are anti-federal and ultra vires of the Constitution, alleging they undermine the federal structure by centralizing power. Specifically, the advocate contended that Sections 3(1), 4(5), 5(1), 6(2), 22, 34, 30, and 37 of the act are unconstitutional. According to the petitioner, these sections lead to excessive centralization, violating federalism—a basic feature of the Constitution—by transferring decision-making authority from local panchayats to the central government.
Court's Firm Stance on Policy Matters
In response, the bench emphasized the separation of powers, stating, "What is there for us to do in court? The scheme of the act is a policy of the Union govt; the answer has to be given by you somewhere else not here. If you are not happy with this, then wait for the elections. These are all statutory policies on sharing liabilities with the states." The court further questioned the petitioner's grounds, asking how the act violates the Constitution and whether it reduces the minimum guaranteed work days under MNREGA.
The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that while the number of work days has increased, it comes with conditions that centralize planning, fund allocation, wage fixation, work nature, monitoring, and implementation. However, the bench countered by noting that even earlier legislation was central in nature, reiterating that federalism does not preclude Union policy decisions.
Adjournment for Better Affidavit
Earlier in the hearing, the court censured the petitioner for not filing a proper affidavit and clear grounds for the challenge. The bench adjourned the hearing to allow the petitioner to submit a more detailed affidavit and substantiated grounds of challenge. This move underscores the court's insistence on procedural rigor while dismissing the substantive claim of judicial overreach into policy domains.
The ruling highlights the judiciary's cautious approach in matters of government policy, reinforcing the principle that courts should not intervene in legislative and executive decisions unless there is a clear constitutional violation. The case has been postponed for further proceedings based on the petitioner's revised submissions.
