( 1 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Muralidhar Agarwal and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar pradesh and Ors. (AIR 1974 SC 1924) explained in paragraphs 30 and 31, the expression public Policy, which is reproduced below:

30. "public Policy" has been defined by Winfield as "a principle of judicial legislation or interpretation founded on the current needs of the community". Now, this would show that the interests of the whole public must be taken into account, but it leads in practice to the paradox is that in many cases what seems to be in contemplation is the interest of one section only of the public, and a small section at that. The explanation of the paradox is that the courts must certainly weigh the interests of the whole community as well as the interests of a considerable section of it, such as tenants, for instance, as a class as in this case. If the decision is in their favour, it means no more than that there is nothing in their conduct which is prejudicial to me nation as a whole. Nor is the benefit of the whole community always a more tacit consideration. The courts may have to strike a balance in express terms between community interests and sectional interests.