New Delhi: Only the day after the Supreme Court Judge Dy Chandrachud took credit in a court that brought a revision in the central vaccination policy, the Supreme Court bench on Wednesday observed that the constitutional court must be held in policy decisions and even said it would consider the norm.
Hearing the request submitted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh against Allahabad High Court who had passed a number of instructions on pandemic management in the state and passed the adverse observation of the government, justification bench, Dinesh Maheshwari asked whether HC should have entered the arena.
The bench said the court’s intention could not be questioned and there was no doubt that would want to improve the situation but the problem was whether disturbances were completely needed during the period of the crisis that must be handled by the government and experts.
The SC Bench view came after the court and several high courts took problems such as oxygen supply and vaccination.
“How attention (is) the intention and purpose, when there is demarcation, we must respect demarcation.
We must be very careful …” said the bench, referring that the judiciary should not interfere with the executive domain in accordance with the principles of power separation.
“Everyone needs to be aware of what to do.
How far the Constitutional Court becomes such a problem.
We want to lie on that aspect,” he said.
Differences of opinions between different SC benches on various problems, including pandemics, emerged with Chandrachud justice on Monday that said the state was empowered to make policy decisions on a pandemic but if this violated the people’s constitutional rights, the validity of this policy was in accordance with the court’s review.
However, since the Supreme Court of India sitting on smaller and equal benches, it gives way for contestation about the interpretation of the same socio-economic rights and the respect level shown to the executive on policy issues, he said.
He also quoted that SC bench refused to entertain pills for payment of minimum wages for migrant workers during locking, but other benches took instructions and crossed direction.
“While the examples above show how the Supreme Court is different in his approach to intervening in action …
it also shows how small and the same court bench gives the possibility of reading the law differently,” he said.