Monday, January 25, 2021
Home Law By ordering free COVID-19 testing in private labs, and order later amended, did SC...

By ordering free COVID-19 testing in private labs, and order later amended, did SC overstep its mandate?

The Court doesn’t have enough practical experience, domain expertise or academic acumen to decisively know what will be the fallout of making testing free. Since this doesn’t involve any metrics of legality, the court should have stayed out of the issue.

Recently, the Supreme Court of India ordered free testing of COVID-19 suspects in all private laboratories approved by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) or the World Health Organisation (WHO) across the country. Less than a week later, faced with criticism, it modified the order to mandate free testing for only the poorest, specifically those covered under the union government’s health insurance scheme.

What do these orders, which actively meddle in the affairs of state business, mean for the court’s role as a judicial institution?

Umpires to activists?

In recent times, there has been an enormous expansion of unaccountable judicial power in India. Since the change in its role; there has been a remarkable shift in the working pattern of the courts by virtue of which the judiciary is said to have occupied an ascendant position within the nation‘s politics. What it would not do under the traditional pattern now seems evidently possible with growing judicial intervention in other spheres of state businesses. 

The Jurisprudence of Judicial review emanated from the U.S Courts. In the case of Marbury v. Madison, 15 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the Supreme Court created its authority to declare federal statutes unconstitutional. Although seldom used in the Court’s early years the power of judicial review over federal statutes has been used more frequently by the Rehnquist Court. In a series of cases, the Court has declared unconstitutional federal statutes that have gone beyond the limits of the Commerce Clause, or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or that have invaded the sovereignty of the states as guaranteed by the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. This was adopted by the Indian Courts at a later point for safeguarding the fundamental rights of the people.

In India judicial Activism has become a buzzword amongst the legal jargons. Judicial activism can be coined as judicial creativity, judicial craftsmanship, judicial law making, imaginative sharing of passion, look beyond the law, activist justicing, etc. However, in recent years, the judiciary has often been criticised for taking on an activist’s role. It is charged to have harboured an increasing tendency to transgress into the fields of other organs, such as the legislatures and the executive. 

The COVID-19 free testing in private labs is just another example of this newfound judicial impulse. 

Covid-19 Free testing

While hearing the case of Shashank Deo Sudhi v Union of India, Civil Writ Petition No. 10816/2020, the Court first ordered universal free testing of COVID-19 suspects in accredited private laboratories and then tapered it down to only the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The court, giving its decision a moral dimension, said private hospitals and laboratories have an important role to play in containing the scale of the pandemic by “extending philanthropic services in the hour of national crisis.”

On the face of it, it seems to be a very good decision. But from a pragmatic point of view, the cons of the order outweigh its pros.

Prima facie, Courts are not expected to step out of their legitimate powers under the garb of Judicial review while discussing a political question. The issue of making the tests at private laboratories free of cost is related to public business, and requires knowledge of State finance. Therefore, it is the elected government that must make decisions on such an issue, largely because the government is administering the situation and is much more aware of the prevailing situation. 

The duty of the judiciary is simply to give effect to the legislative policy of a statute under the ambit of the Constitution and not reconstruct or create a policy. The court does not have jurisdiction over any such issue since it is only about policy with no legal element involved.

No legal basis for intervention

The theory of Separation of Powers as expounded by Montesquieu and accepted by our country provides for three organs of the State –  the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. The Judiciary has been assigned the role of adjudicating disputes and defining the rights of the parties. 

In Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549, the Constitution bench of the SC observed, “the Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of Separation of Powers in absolute rigidity but the functions of the different branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can be very well said that our Constitution doesn’t provide for the assumption by one organ or part of the State of functions that essentially belong to another”. 

Restricting the Judicial transgressions in policy matters, it was held in Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Vs. UOI ILR (1974) Del 847 and Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs ILR (1987) Del 235, “that where the power to do or not to do a thing is optional and discretionary and there is no statutory obligation, direction to the Executive to do a particular thing cannot be given even where the matter is of public importance.” 

Similarly, in Kanhaiya Lal Sethia Vs. UOI (1997) 6 SCC 573, the Apex Court held that “it is not open to a petitioner to seek a direction to the Union of India to introduce an official Bill in the Parliament or to sponsor a Private Member’s Bill to be introduced on the subject. It was also observed that “Courts should not interfere in policy matters of the State unless the policy violates the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory provision or is otherwise actuated by mala fides.”

As per the observations done and ratio recorded, it’s amply clear that the courts cannot and shouldn’t interfere into the work ambit of Legislative or Executive organs of the government, as such decisions are made by the experts in the field after considering and keeping due factors in conscience. 

The Court doesn’t have enough practical experience, domain expertise or academic acumen to decisively know what will be the fallout of making testing free. Since this doesn’t involve any metrics of legality, the court should have stayed out of the issue.

Further, the nature of the reimbursement is still uncertain. The courts didn’t seek any recommendation while passing the order. The modification of the original order also raises an evident presumption about the lacuna that was inherent in the previous order. Even by restricting free testing to the poorest,  the Court has encroached upon the policymaking power of the government. It has made the same mistake which it set out to fix through the later modification. 

This step might keep both government and private labs under the garb of uncertainty and could stifle the fight against COVID-19. This may in turn lead to shutting down of private labs, as it will make no economic logic for them in the absence of a quid pro quo when resources are limited. Once private labs start shutting down, there will be an acute shortage of testing facilities, because those who can afford private testing will also become more vulnerable to the disease due to a shortage of equipment. These loopholes weren’t addressed by the apex court.

The decision, thus, was an erratic one. The intervention that should have been done in the interests of the public may act as an attack against their own interests. 

  Support Us  

Whether NDTV or 'The Wire', they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

Vishal Kumarhttp://www.invinciblyconvincible.wordpress.com
I am Vishal Kumar, currently pursuing LL. B. from Campus Law Centre, DU. I did graduation in Political science from Ramjas college, DU. Interested in research, philosophy, political issues, economics and law. Worked with various Law firms and Litigants across India.

 

Related Articles

Trending now

Jharkhand: Family of Puja Bharti, who was found dead with hands and legs tied, dismisses ‘suicide’ claims, demand CBI inquiry

Puja Bharti's father dismissed the suicide theory and questioned if it were indeed suicide, how were here hands and legs tied up.

As India becomes the focus of the world with Coronavirus vaccines, China unleashes propaganda war

China has launched a smear campaign to belittle the Indian-developed COVID-19 vaccines—Covaxin and Covishield

Impossible man: Why Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose cannot be appropriated by any party and what Indians can learn from him

Not just within the Indian political context, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose will make almost anyone uncomfortable

Sikkim: India foils China’s attempt to infiltrate, inflicts injuries on PLA soldiers in close combat

Besides 20 PLA soldiers, four Indian soldiers also reportedly sustained injuries in the clash at Naku La in Sikkim

BJP goes offensive in Bengal ahead of polls, includes ‘Jai Shree Ram’ slogan in its campaign video

By usuing 'Jai Shree Ram' BJP has officially blown the conch shells to announce battle against the dogmatic Mamata Banerjee

Uttar Pradesh: From Basant Panchami, students to get free coaching for competitive exams under Abhyudaya scheme

Under the CM Abhyudaya programme, students to get free coaching for competitive exams across the state

Recently Popular

Professor who translated Rahul Gandhi’s “don’t need army if farmers are strong” speech in Erode faints after the speech: Reports

Muhammed Imran, who translated Rahul Gandhi's speech at Erode, collapsed after interpreting the speech from English to Tamil

‘I allow you housewives to have extra-marital affair with man of your choice’: Video of Mamata Banerjee’s ‘progressive’ speech goes viral

Mamata Banerjee says she is so "flexible" that she has given permission to housewives to have extra-marital affairs

Groping a minor’s breast without ‘skin contact’ not sexual assault: Details of the shocking Bombay High Court verdict

The Bombay High Court in a recent verdict has ruled that groping without skin-to-skin contact is not sexual assault.

Gujarat Forest Dept to take legal action against Christian Evangelist Paul Dhinakaran over unauthorised use of the department’s logo

Website of Paul Dhinakaran claims of collaborating with the Gujarat Forest Department, a claim junked by the latter

Donating for construction of Ram Mandir? Beware of these fraud UPI IDs

Beware of fraudsters. UPI IDs which are similar to the real UPI ID for Ram Mandir donation have propped up.
- Advertisement -

 

After getting offended over ‘Jai Shree Ram’ chants, Mamata Banerjee complains about being ‘teased’ in front of the Prime Minister

Mamata Banerjee was addressing a public rally in Hooghly's Pursura months ahead of state legislative assembly election

Jharkhand: Family of Puja Bharti, who was found dead with hands and legs tied, dismisses ‘suicide’ claims, demand CBI inquiry

Puja Bharti's father dismissed the suicide theory and questioned if it were indeed suicide, how were here hands and legs tied up.

After 1500 Jio towers were destroyed by Punjab ‘farmers’, has Rahul Gandhi cut down on his Adani-Ambani jibe?

From the last few weeks, Rahul Gandhi has consciously refrained from making “Adani-Ambani” jibes to attack the Modi government

Khalistani terror group SFJ calls CISF to threaten ahead of Republic Day, urges protestors to hold Bhindrawale posters

The phone call to CISF was reportedly made on behalf of SFJ's Gurparwant Singh Pannu.

‘What is wrong with your mindset? Such people must not be spared,’ MP HC makes scathing remarks against Munawar Faruqui: Details

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reserved its order on the bail application filed by Munawar Faruqui.

Not just Rahul Gandhi, his great grandfather Nehru also thought that India does not need an Army

Yesterday, Rahul Gandhi opined that India does not need the armed forces especially at Indo-China border.

Is it actor Prosenjit Chatterjee in the portrait of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose inaugurated by President Kovind? A fact check

It was claimed that it was actor Prosenjit Chatterjee in the portrait of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose inaugurated by President Kovind.

Mamata Banerjee once held a bogus PhD degree from a University that did not exist. Read details

Back in 1984, Mamata Banerjee had claimed to have completed Phd from a University which did not exist.

As India becomes the focus of the world with Coronavirus vaccines, China unleashes propaganda war

China has launched a smear campaign to belittle the Indian-developed COVID-19 vaccines—Covaxin and Covishield

Republic under siege: How Congress, career-protestors, opposition parties and Khalistanis are setting the stage for violence

The Delhi Police has granted permission to farmer protesters for their tractor parade at the national capital on the 26th of January.

Connect with us

245,563FansLike
496,912FollowersFollow
22,900SubscribersSubscribe