New Delhi: Outlining the boundaries of judicial intervention, the Supreme Court has held that courts must exercise restraint in issuing directions that effectively require the State to formulate policies, as it falls within the domain of the executive and legislature.
The court observed that “the Constitution does not permit the courts to direct or advise the executive in matters concerning policy,” underscoring the principle of separation of powers.
The judgment came on a civil appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh government challenging a series of directions issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court concerning farmers’ welfare and agricultural reforms.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, on 14 May, partly allowed the state’s appeal, setting aside key directions that required the government to implement wide-ranging measures such as loan waivers, minimum support prices (MSP), and the establishment of a State Farmers’ Commission in Himachal Pradesh.
The judgment underscores that while courts can highlight governance failures and ensure accountability, they must refrain from managing policy decisions or imposing legislative functions on governments.
Also Read: Haryana bans ‘kachi parchi’ in grain markets—a scrap of paper that cheated farmers of crores
2014 public interest litigation
The case originated from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2014 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The petitioner, a society concerned with cattle welfare, sought directions to establish gaushalas, ban cow slaughter, and implement protective measures for stray cattle. However, during the proceedings, the high court expanded the scope of the petition to address broader agrarian distress, citing the plight of farmers in Himachal.
In 2016, it issued a series of mandatory directions requiring the state to formulate and implement policies within strict timelines.
These directions included implementing recommendations of the National Commission on Farmers, providing MSP at least 50 percent above production costs, introducing loan waiver schemes for small and marginal farmers, expanding crop insurance coverage and setting up a state-level Farmers’ Commission.
State’s challenge
The state government contested these directions, arguing that the high court had exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively mandating policy decisions without considering financial and administrative feasibility.
It also contended that several welfare schemes were already in place at both the state and central levels and the court failed to account for existing measures.
The state government further argued that implementing such directives within prescribed timelines was impractical, particularly given fiscal constraints and the need for detailed consultations and resource allocation.
Supreme Court’s findings
The Supreme Court acknowledged that high courts, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, have wide powers and may even take suo motu cognisance of issues of public importance.
However, the bench emphasised that such authority is not unlimited. It ruled that directing governments to frame policies or enact schemes falls squarely within the domain of the executive and legislature and not the judiciary. It found that the high court’s directives, such as mandating MSP decisions, loan waiver schemes and the formation of commissions, amounted to judicial overreach. It also noted that such orders were issued without adequately considering the state’s views on feasibility or financial implications.
While upholding the high court’s jurisdiction to expand the scope of proceedings in the public interest, the Supreme Court set aside the specific policy-oriented directions contained in the 2016 high court’s orders.
Importantly, the court clarified that directions relating to cattle welfare were no longer in dispute, as the state had already enacted the Himachal Pradesh Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Samvardhan Act, 2018, addressing those concerns.
Alfreza Ahmed is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: MS Swaminathan’s unfinished dream for women farmers may finally see the light of day