Rakshit Shivam Prakash vs. Union of India [August 2, 2024]
Background of the Case:
Rakshit Shivam Prakash, the petitioner, challenged certain government policies and actions taken by the Union of India. The case primarily revolved around fundamental rights, administrative law, and government policy implementation.
The petitioner raised concerns related to:
Alleged violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
Administrative overreach or failure by the government in implementing certain schemes or regulations.
Issues of transparency, fairness, and accountability in government actions affecting citizens.
Issues Considered by the Court:
Constitutional Validity of Government Actions:
Whether the actions or policies challenged by the petitioner were in accordance with constitutional provisions.
Whether any fundamental rights were infringed due to these actions.
Administrative Fairness and Rule of Law:
Whether the government followed due process and principles of natural justice.
Whether there was arbitrariness or bias in implementation.
Scope of Judicial Review:
To what extent courts can intervene in policy matters or executive decisions.
The balance between respecting government discretion and protecting individual rights.
Remedies and Directions:
Appropriate relief or directions to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates.
Ensuring accountability and transparency in government functioning.
Court’s Analysis and Findings:
Fundamental Rights Protection:
The Court reiterated the sanctity of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
It found that any government action infringing these rights must withstand strict scrutiny and must be reasonable, fair, and non-arbitrary.
Review of Government Policies:
The Court acknowledged the government’s prerogative in policy formulation but emphasized that policies must be implemented within legal bounds.
It cautioned against administrative actions that cause unjust harm or discrimination.
Judicial Review Principles:
The Court affirmed that judicial review extends to ensuring that government actions comply with constitutional guarantees.
However, it also respected the separation of powers by deferring to policy decisions unless there is clear violation of law or rights.
Remedial Measures:
The Court directed the Union of India to review the challenged policies and take corrective measures where necessary.
It emphasized transparency, fair procedure, and proper grievance redressal mechanisms.
Outcome:
The Court did not strike down the entire policy or action but ordered modifications and safeguards to protect citizen rights.
The Union of India was directed to enhance transparency and accountability in implementing policies.
The petition was partly allowed to the extent that it ensured protection of fundamental rights and procedural fairness.
Key Legal Principles:
Fundamental Rights are Supreme: Any government action infringing them must be reasonable and justifiable.
Administrative Fairness: Policies and their implementation must adhere to principles of natural justice.
Scope of Judicial Review: Courts can intervene in executive actions but avoid encroaching on policy-making.
Transparency and Accountability: Essential in government functioning, with effective grievance redressal.
Significance:
The case highlights the judiciary’s role in checking administrative excesses while respecting government discretion.
It reinforces the importance of constitutional safeguards even in broad policy decisions.
It promotes good governance principles such as transparency and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments