Every Activity Of Executive May Not Be Controlled By Judiciary: Uttarakhand HC Refuses To Interfere In Policy Matter Involving Disinvestment
The Uttarakhand High Court held that disinvestment is a policy decision and is generally not subject to interference by the judiciary, especially when there is no direct grievance related to the service conditions of the petitioners. The Court noted that the petitioner's concerns had been raised in a previous petition in 2019, which was dismissed, and stated that it lacked the expertise to evaluate the decision to disinvest. In this case, the petitioner, a trade union representing permanent workmen of the Indian Medicine and Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (IMPEL), challenged a disinvestment decision made by the Union of India. The Union of India had announced its intention to disinvest its entire stake in IMPEL through strategic disinvestment in transfer of management control, as notified in an advertisement and a Global Invitation of Expression of Interest in September 2023.
A Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani held, “It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a jurisdiction much unlimited, but, also controlled by certain guidelines. In pure policy matters, generally, the Court refrains to make any interference. Every activity of the executive may not be controlled by the judiciary.”
Advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate V.K. Kaparuwan appeared for the Respondents.
The petitioner argued that the disinvestment decision and the related expression of interest did not specify the age of superannuation for the employees, which, according to the petitioner, violated the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The petitioner contended that IMPEL, a profit-making undertaking, did not require disinvestment financially and that the decision was against public interest, the purpose of IMPEL's establishment, and the policies of the State of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner also highlighted that IMPEL was established in a Reserve Forest, and there were stipulations regarding land usage. Furthermore, the petitioner referred to the disinvestment policy and statements made by the Minister of Disinvestment in 2002, emphasizing the objectives of disinvestment, including modernization, employment generation, and preventing alienation of national assets.
However, the Court noted that disinvestment is a policy decision and that the petitioner, being workers in IMPEL, did not have a direct grievance related to their service conditions. The Court pointed out that a similar matter had been raised in a previous petition in 2019, which was dismissed, with the court deferring to the expertise of the authorities involved in such decisions. The Court said, “This Court cannot presuppose that the concern, that has been raised by the Court in its order dated 11.12.2019, in the first petition, has not been addressed to by the Union of India. Even today, this Court lacks expertise to evaluate the decision to disinvestment. Various factors are involved in this process. Public interest definitely is at the peak of it. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference.”
Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition at the stage of admission.
Cause Title: I.M.P.C.L. Karmachari Sang v. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read/download Judgment
