2016 Supreme(SC) 979

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA – APPELLANT
Versus
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 717 OF 2006 WITH T.P.(C) No. 75 of 2012
Decided On : 14-12-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial power is respected and adhered to in a system based on rule of law precisely for its nuanced and restrained exercise.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Judicial review – Scope and ambit – Distinction between what lies within and what lies outside power of judicial review is necessary to preserve sanctity of judicial power – Judicial power is respected and adhered to in a system based on rule of law precisely for its nuanced and restrained exercise – If these restraints are not maintained court as an institution would invite a justifiable criticism of encroaching upon a terrain on which it singularly lacks expertise and which is entrusted for governance to legislative and executive arms of Government – Judgments are enforced because of belief which society and arms of governance of a democratic society hold in sanctity of judicial process – This sanctity is based on institutional prestige – Institutional authority is established over long years, by a steadfast commitment to a calibrated exercise of judicial power. (Para 10)

       (B) Aircraft Act, 1957 – Section 5(e) – Aircraft Rules, 1957 – Rule 8(a) – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Airport security – Breach of security at Sanganer airport was an issue of serious concern and would have been carefully investigated both in terms of prosecuting offender and by revisiting reasons for and implications of a security lapse of this nature – This exercise was for authorities to carry out – It was not for Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review to suggest a policy which it considered fit – Formulation of suggestions by High Court for framing a National Security Policy travelled far beyond legitimate domain of judicial review – Formulation of such a policy is based on information and inputs which are not available to court – Court is not an expert in such matters – Judicial review is concerned with legality of executive action and court can interfere only where there is a breach of law or a violation of Constitution – Security perception of Union Government is that no exemption can be granted to a dignitary if he/she is not under effective government security coverage on a 24x7 basis – Heads of foreign missions in India are exempted from pre-embarkation security checks on a reciprocal basis – Court is not called upon to decide upon legality or justification for inclusion of name of any particular individual in list of exempted persons in these proceedings – View of Union government is based on a considered assessment of security perceptions and ought not to have been interfered with in manner that High Court did in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside. (Paras 9 to 12)

       Facts of case:

       Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance of the news report and a public interest petition was registered. During the course of the hearing, the Division Bench directed Chief Security Officer of airport, Secretary to Home Department and Director General of Police to show cause how a security lapse had occurred. High Court has directed that certain suggestions formulated by it for laying down a ‘National Security Policy’ should be considered by Union Government. Union of India moved this Court under Article 136 of Constitution.

       Findings of Court:

       Suo moto exercise of nature embarked upon by High Court encroaches upon domain of executive. In a democracy based on the rule of law, government is accountable to legislature and, through it, to people. Powers under Article 226 are wide enough to reach out to injustice wherever it may originate. These powers have been construed liberally and have been applied expansively where human rights have been violated. But, notion of injustice is relatable to justice under law. Justice should not be made to depend upon individual perception of a decision maker on where a balance or solution should lie. Judges are expected to apply standards which are objective and well defined by law and founded upon constitutional principle.

       Result : Transfer Petition disposed of.