2006 (7) TMI 577 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution? Held that - It is not the case of the petitioners that with any oblique motive the eligibility criteria has been stipulated. On the contrary after analyzing the issues a Committee appointed by the respondent had suggested the norms and the schemes was accordingly prepared. We do not find any irrationality much less something which is totally out of context to justify interference. Clause 4 of the Scheme (Broad Description of Proposed arrangement) indicates that in order to implement this Court s order there was desirability to discourage contractors and involve SSG through non-profit organisations. As the scheme itself provides the intention is to make the SSGs. fully equipped within a certain period after these NGOs. go out of the picture and State Government steps in. In the aforesaid background we do not find anything illicit in the impugned criteria to warrant interference. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the three-year experience requirement for non-profit organizations in the ICDS scheme.
2. Judicial review of administrative action and policy decisions.
3. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding equality before law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Three-Year Experience Requirement:
The writ petitions challenge the stipulation that only non-profit organizations with at least three years of experience are eligible to participate in the "Detailed Scheme for Capacity Building of Self Help Groups to Prepare and Supply Supplementary Nutrition under the Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Programme." The petitioners argue that this requirement is irrational and contrary to the scheme's objectives, as it excludes genuine organizations with substantial experience but less than three years of registration. They contend that eligibility should be based on the actual experience of the individuals managing the organizations rather than the duration of the organization's registration.

2. Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Policy Decisions:
The Court emphasized its limited role in judicial review of administrative actions, stating that it is not an appellate authority and cannot direct or advise the executive on policy matters unless there is a transgression of constitutional limits or statutory power. The Court referenced several precedents, including Ashif Hamid v. State of J. & K. and Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India, to support its position that policy decisions are the prerogative of the government and should not be interfered with by the judiciary unless they violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions.

3. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the three-year experience requirement violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They claimed that the requirement discriminated against organizations with substantial but less than three years of experience. The Court, however, rejected this argument, stating that Article 14 does not apply to legitimize illegal or illegitimate actions. The Court cited several cases, including Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann, to assert that a wrong decision in one case does not entitle another party to claim the same benefit based on equality. The Court held that the concept of equality under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner to perpetuate illegalities.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the three-year experience requirement for non-profit organizations under the ICDS scheme. It found no irrationality in the eligibility criteria and emphasized the importance of policy decisions being left to the government's discretion. The Court also clarified the scope of Article 14, stating that it cannot be used to justify or perpetuate illegal actions. The petitions were dismissed with no costs.