Setting Up Rural Libraries A Policy Matter, Court Can't Direct Prioritization Over Basic Amenities: Supreme Court - 2025-04-02

SC Declines to Mandate Village Libraries, Cites Policy Prerogative of States

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasized that while establishing libraries in every village is a "laudable object," it cannot issue a directive compelling state governments to do so, classifying the prioritization of welfare schemes as a policy matter best left to the government's wisdom.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Mundona Rural Development Foundation, urging states to consider the initiative while respecting their financial limitations and other developmental priorities.

---

Background of the Petition

The Mundona Rural Development Foundation filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Union of India and all State Governments to establish libraries in rural areas through their Gram Panchayats. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Ashok Kumar Panda , argued that such a move would be crucial for the educational and cultural development of rural populations.

Court's Observations on the Merits of Libraries

The Supreme Court acknowledged the profound value of the petitioner's plea. The bench observed that village libraries could play a pivotal role in national development.

"The setting up of a village library is undoubtedly a laudable object. Such library would help in reaching out to the young children and the posterity to learn about our history, culture, literature, geography, the constitutional values, rights and responsibilities of the citizenry," the Court noted in its order.

The judgment recognized Gram Panchayats, under Article 243G of the Constitution, as the primary institutions for implementing schemes for economic development and social justice at the grassroots level.

Reasoning: A Matter of Policy and Prioritization

Despite agreeing with the petitioner's objective, the Court refrained from issuing a binding order. The bench highlighted that it could not be "oblivious of the fact" that other basic amenities are equally, if not more, critical in rural areas.

The Court stated, "adequate facilities for health, education, drinking water, hygienic conditions and other basic amenities required in the rural areas, if not more, are equally important."

The core of the Court's reasoning was rooted in the principle of separation of powers and judicial restraint in policy matters. The judgment elaborated on this point:

"The prioritization of such basic amenities, in our considered opinion, is a matter of policy which can be left to the wisdom of the policymakers. It would not be prudent for a Court, in the absence of relevant data, facts and details of the financial conditions and prior commitments of a State or its agencies, to determine as to which of these facilities should be priortised overlooking the others."

Final Decision and Future Outlook

In its final order, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition by strongly encouraging state governments to pursue the establishment of village libraries. The bench directed the states to "look into this aspect of the matter and take necessary steps within the limits of their resources."

Expressing hope for future action, the Court also suggested innovative solutions to overcome financial hurdles. It recommended the promotion of e-libraries and the exploration of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funding as viable avenues to achieve the goal.

The decision underscores the judiciary's role in nudging the executive towards progressive action without overstepping its constitutional boundaries into the domain of policy-making and resource allocation.