Citing several verdicts of the Supreme Court, Advocate-General B.S. Prasad on Tuesday contended in Telangana High Court that courts cannot transgress into the area of policy decisions of government unless they violate Constitutional provisions.
As the final hearing began on a batch of PIL petitions challenging Telangana government’s decision to pull down existing Secretariat building, the AG said there were limitations on judicial review of governments’ policy decisions. He was presenting government’s contentions before a Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A. Abhishek Reddy.
When a policy decision, like Telangana government’s proposal to demolish existing Secretariat building and construct a new one, was not against any law, one cannot say it was arbitrary and unreasonable, he told the court. Referring to two of the PIL pleas, the AG said one petitioner was a Member of Parliament and another was a Member of Legislative Council.
‘Politically motivated’
Being political opponents, the petitioners chose to file the PIL petitions challenging the government’s policy decision, Mr. Prasad said. Just because they were political opponent would they lose an opportunity to file a PIL petition, the CJ asked. The AG said the apex court in a verdict stated that Public Interest Litigation should not be “publicity interest litigation” or “private interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or the latest trend of “paise income litigation”. Referring to the PIL pleas on Secretariat demolition, the AG said the petitioners cannot dictate to government whether to demolish Secretariat or not.
Only if there was any infringement of statutory or Constitutional provisions, the people or the courts can interfere, he said. Quoting from the counter affidavits filed by government earlier, the AG explained to the Bench that elements of parking space, security of VVIPs, need for bigger meeting halls with seating capacity of 500 persons, dwindling soundness of existing buildings drove government to decide for construction of a new Secretariat building.
Independent review
Senior lawyer Satyam Reddy, counsel for one of the petitioners, appealed to the Bench to direct the government to get the condition of the present Secretariat building reviewed by a Central agency or IIT-Hyderabad. The technical committee comprising four chief engineers naturally tends to give a report favourable to government decision, he said.
But that would trigger arguments on the disputed question of facts which the Bench cannot allow, the CJ said. It had to direct the petitioners to approach the civil court to adjudicate the matter based on the reports given by different agencies, the CJ said.
The matter was posted to Thursday for next hearing.
