India– The views on the efficacy of a government policy and the objectives such policy seeks to achieve may differ. Under our Constitution, the executive has been accorded primary responsibility for the formulation of governmental policy. The executive function comprises both the determination of policy as well as carrying it into execution.
The Court opined thus in context of the implementation of the FDI policy and further observed that if the Government of the day after due reflection, consideration and deliberation feels that by allowing FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading, the country’s economy will grow and it will facilitate better access to the market for the producer of goods and enhance the employment potential, then, it is not open for the Court to go into the merits and demerits of such policy.
The Court held that on matters affecting policy, the Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The Court concluded that the impugned Policy that allows FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices.
Please see the following judgment on this topic: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (Supreme Court of India, 2013)