Point of Law: A policy decision by Central Government, taken after due deliberations, at various levels and is not open to interference in judicial review by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, more particularly in absence of any illegality or arbitrariness being established by Petitioner, in decision making process and as rightly contended by Respondent No.6 is a highly belated challenge.

JUDGMENT

D.N. PATEL, J.

1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to quash the present Air India Disinvestment process,

b. issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction of similar nature to set aside and revoke any action or decision or grant of any further approvals/ permissions/ permits, etc. by the Respondent authorities with respect to the present Air India Disinvestment process,

c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent No. 5 to investigate into the role and functioning of the Respondents authorities and submit a detail report in the present Air India Disinvestment process exclusively to this Hon’ble Court,

d. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Arguments were heard on behalf of the respective parties on 04.01.2022. During the course of arguments, learned Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4 sought liberty to place on record a short Note on the arguments canvassed by him. Liberty was granted to do the needful. Similarly, Petitioner and Respondent No.6 were also permitted to file their respective short Notes. All the parties filed their respective Notes of arguments, which have been taken on record and perused.

3. The factual matrix is in a narrow compass. Process of disinvestment of Air India and its subsidiaries commenced in June, 2017, with the in-principle approval of Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA). The first round did not elicit any Expression of Interest. A policy decision to disinvest was taken after following the transparent procedure through multi-layered decision making, involving Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG), Core Group of Secretaries on Disinvestment (CGD) and the empowered Air India Specific Alternative Mechanism (AISAM) at the apex Ministerial level, with support for the entire process from reputed Transaction Adviser, Legal Adviser and Asset Valuer.

4. Advertisements inviting bids mentioned that the Government would cease to be responsible for loss after the date of disinvestment, as brought out in the documents annexed as Annexure A-1and Annexure A-3 with the writ petition. In the light of excessive debt and other liabilities of Air India, arising out of huge accumulated losses, the bidding construct was revised in October, 2020 to allow the prospective bidders an opportunity to resize the balance sheet and increase chances of receiving bids and competition. The bids were invited on the basis of the revised construct for total consideration for equity and debt with minimum cash consideration of 15% for equity (“Enterprise Value”). Further, it was clearly advertised and made known that the sum of certain identified current and non-current liabilities (other than debt) would be retained in Air India and AIXL and would be equal to the sum of certain identified current and non-current assets of Air India and AIXL. The balance debt, over the debt quoted in Enterprise Value bid and excess liabilities, over and above the value of identified current and non-current assets, for the pre-disinvestment period, would be transferred to an identified Government Company.

5. First and foremost contention of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Petitioner in person was that the Air India Disinvestment process is arbitrary, unconstitutional, unfair, discriminatory and unreasonable and the same cannot be sustained in law. Process is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as against the interest of National integrity and security, primarily for t