1. Suo motu direction by High Court under Article 226 for road construction citing Article 21 — Challenge under Article 136. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1612
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., M.K.Mukherjee, Sujata V.Manohar, JJ.
State Of H.P.
Versus
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/4/96
Important Points
Courts cannot direct the State to allocate funds or prioritize specific infrastructure projects, as budgetary allocations and the determination of development priorities are the exclusive prerogative of the State Government, based on available resources and tax recovery.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 and 136 - Suo motu direction for road construction - Enforcement of fundamental rights - Budgetary allocations and priorities - High Court directed the State to construct specific roads and provide adequate funds based on a press report - It is held that while communication networks are necessary, such necessity is subject to availability of funds - Priorities for fund allocation are to be determined by the State Government - Judicial interference in budgetary allocations would disrupt development programs and divert funds allocated based on priority requirements - Budgetary allocations are based on tax recovery and capacity to pay - Allowing specific areas to benefit through court orders would lead to chaos if similar reliefs are sought by others. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A High Court, acting suo motu on a press report, directed the State to construct certain roads, including a specific link road, within a specified financial timeframe, citing the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State challenged this order before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found it difficult to uphold the High Court's decision as the allocation of funds and determination of priorities for development projects are the exclusive domain of the State Government.
Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction to direct the State Government to allocate funds and prioritize the construction of specific roads.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that budgetary allocations are made based on tax recovery and priority requirements determined by the State; therefore, judicial interference in these financial decisions would disrupt the State's development program and create an unsustainable precedent if other areas sought similar reliefs.
Result: Appeal allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Facts of the case:
A High Court, acting suo motu on a press report, directed the State to construct certain roads, including a specific link road, within a specified financial timeframe, citing the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State challenged this order before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found it difficult to uphold the High Court's decision as the allocation of funds and determination of priorities for development projects are the exclusive domain of the State Government.
Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction to direct the State Government to allocate funds and prioritize the construction of specific roads.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that budgetary allocations are made based on tax recovery and priority requirements determined by the State; therefore, judicial interference in these financial decisions would disrupt the State's development program and create an unsustainable precedent if other areas sought similar reliefs.
Result: Appeal allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether the judiciary can direct the State to allocate funds and determine priorities for specific infrastructure projects. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Infrastructure development depends on fund availability and executive priority determination; judicial interference in budgetary allocations disrupts planned development and creates chaos. (Para 3 )
4. Budgetary allocations and priority determination for development projects are executive functions and not subject to judicial direction for specific areas. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed and the High Court order set aside. (Para 3 )
6. Can the judiciary direct the State to allocate funds for specific infrastructure projects?
No, as infrastructure development depends on fund availability and the State Government's determination of priorities. Judicial interference in budgetary allocations disrupts development programmes and may cause chaos if similar reliefs are sought by others. (Para 3 )
7. What factors govern the State's budgetary allocations for development?
Budgetary allocations are based on the tax recovered from the State's inhabitants and their capacity to pay, requiring development programmes to be phased according to determined priorities. (Para 3 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) ACTING on a press report (Jansatta) dated 5-5-1995 the High Court in suo motu exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution directed that a certain road be constructed during the financial year in question in any case before the next financial year runs out. This is purported to have been done in enforcement of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court stated that although construction of all the roads mentioned in the petition is necessary, it directed the State to complete at least the important ones among them and particularly, Link Road from Bhakhality to Majhar. It further directed that adequate funds be provided for this purpose by the State Government for completion of this road and other roads so that the long-standing demand of the people of the area is met. It is this order of the High Court which is put in challenge before us under Article 136 of the Constitution.
(3) WE have heard the learned counsel for the State Government, none appearing on behalf of the original petitioner, namely, the High Court. We find it extremely difficult to uphold the decision of the High Court. While it may be true that it is necessary to lay the communication network, that necessity can be fulfilled only on the basis of the availability of funds. Besides the priorities would have to be determined by the State Government and only thereafter allocation of funds for each project could be met. Any interference of this nature would require diversion of funds carefully allocated on the basis of priority requirements and thereby disturb the programme of development chalked out by the State Government. Budgetary allocations are made on the basis of the tax recovered from the inhabitants of the State and their capacity to pay the tax and, therefore, development programmes have to be phased out and this has to be done on determination of priorities. It is not proper, therefore, to allow one particular area to benefit by a court order because if others come to court for similar reliefs it would totally disrupt the priorities and bring about chaos. We, therefore, cannot allow the order of the High Court to stand. We had granted an interim order against the enforcement of this order and we now affirm it by allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 12-1-1996. No costs.
