Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
20. Similarly, issues regarding establishing fodder banks or restructuring bank loans, the extent to which restructuring should be carried out are all issues that are required to be decided by experts. Even then, within the community of experts, there are likely to be differences of opinion. While one set of experts might fix crop loss for relief at 50% another set of experts might consider the crop loss for relief above or below 50%. This being the position, there cannot be any judicially manageable standards for determining issues of policy and it would be hazardous if not dangerous for us to venture into such areas when we lack the expertise to do so.
21. This Court has, on several occasions, dealt with issues of policy whether having an economic and fiscal flavour or even mundane matters of policy including, for example, transfer of government servants from one place to another. This Court has not interfered in such matters unless the policy is demonstrably perverse.
22. Fairly recently, in Essar Steels Ltd. v. U11io11 of /11dia 1 this Court summed up the position in law as follows: "Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds: 1 2016 (4) SCALE 267 = MANU/SC/0431/2016 (a) ifit is unconstitutional; (b) if it is de 'hors the provisions of the Act and the Regulations; ( c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; ( d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy."
23. There are several decisions to the same effect including, for example, another recent decision of this Court Centre/or Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India~ and some earlier decisions such as M.P. C Oil Extraction v. State of Madllya Pradesll 3, Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India~ and of course the Constitution Bench decision in Peerless General Finance ant/Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India;. For the present purposes, the summation provided in Essar Steels is quite clear: "Executive policies are usually enacted after much deliberation by the Government. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to question the wisdom of the same, unless it is demonstrated by the aggrieved persons that the said policy has been enacted in an arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide manner, or that it offends the provisions of the Constitution oflndia."
24. Therefore, the issues raised by the petitioner should actually be looked at from the point of view of implementation of a policy and monitoring its implementation. In our opinion, in the process of implementation and monitoring, what is important is for the Union of F India and the State Governments to set up watch-dog committees or ombudsmen to see that the polices framed are faithfully implemented. There is little utility in knee-jerk reactions and stumbling along from one situation to another.
25. Ad hoc measures really do not serve any purpose and eventually G the consequence of an ad hoc reaction tends to travel to this Court for a response. The one possible solution appears to be for the Union oflndia '2016 (3) SCALE 712 = MANU/SC/0372/2016 3 (I997J1 sec 592 • c2009J 1 sec 561 ' (1992) 2 sec 343 SWARAJ ABHIYAN – (IV) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] and the States to set up their respective watch-dog committees that will specialize in certain disciplines for the purposes of implementation and monitoring the schemes and policies framed by the Union of India and the State Governments. A policy might be acceptable and worthy, but often it is the effective implementation and monitoring that is lacking.
26. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to issue only one direction in respect of the three issues raised by the petitioner which is to direct the concerned authorities in the Union of India, the State Governments and the Reserve Bank of India and other banks to religiously implement their policies since they are ultimately intended for the benefit of the people of our country and not for the benefit of any stranger. Court Commissioners
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists on the appointment of Court Commissioners to oversee the implementation of the various directions issued by us. Reference is made by learned counsel to what o is commonly called the Right to Food Campaign which resulted in the appointment of Commissioners by this Court to report on the functioning and improvement of the public distribution system. Some useful and valuable suggestions were certainly given by the Court Commissioners and which were implemented under the directions of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is necessary for us to direct the appointment of Court Commissioners so that the provisions of the various statutes under consideration are faithfully implemented and the various schemes framed by the Government oflndia and the State Governments are implemented in their true spirit.
28. Learned Additional Solicitor General vehemently opposes this plea on the ground that the appointment would serve no useful purpose. He submits that it is not as ifthe officers in the Government oflndia are not doing their work. While there may be some laxity or slackness on occasion but that cannot be generalized to necessitate some external authorities to monitor the functions of the officers of the State. He submits that there are internal checks within the administration which ensure that governance is carried out for the welfare of the people and in a transparent and accountable manner.
29. We have given our consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor H c General and find that the system of in-house checks has already been statutorily recognized for all the issues that we have dealt with in this case. For example, the Disaster Management Act, 2005 constitutes authorities and bodies like the National Disaster Management Authority, the National Executive Committee etc. to ensure that the Act is faithfully implemented and measures taken are reviewed and monitored from time to time. Similarly, the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 also mandate the constitution and establishment of bodies and authorities under the statute to review and monitor the implementation of the statute and the schemes or programs thereunder.
30. It is another matter altogether that some provisions of these statues have been converted into a dead letter and various authorities under these statutes have not yet been constituted compelling us to comment on the failure of the Executive branch of the Government of India and the State Governments to faithfully implement the law enacted by Parliament. We have also given directions in this regard and we certainly expect a favourable response to the directions issued and their compliance. For the present, therefore, we do not see the need for the appointment of any Court Commissioner. Continuing mandamus
31. We are firmly of the view that the principle of continuing mandamus is now an integral part of our constitutional jurisprudence. There are any number of public interest petitions in which this Court has continued to monitor the implementation of its orders and on occasion monitor investigations into alleged offences where there has been some apparent stonewalling by the Government of India. A few years ago, one of us had occasion to advert to the requirement of a continuing mandamus as a part of our jurisprudence.6 It is not necessary to repeat the views expressed therein.
32. Under these circumstances, we agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition ought not be disposed of but should be kept pending and the possibility of a continuing mandamus being issued ought to be kept open to ensure that the directions that have been given are complied with by the Government of India as well as the State Governments. 6 Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union oflndia. (2014) 2 SCC 532 SWARAJ ABHIYAN – (IV) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
33. We adjourn this case to I" August, 2016 at 2.00 p.m. and direct the Union of India to file a status report on or before 25'" July, 2016 stating the action taken by the Government of India on the various directions that we have given in this case on different dates. Nidhi Jain Matter adjourned.