Courts Cannot Order States To Adopt Specific Plans

The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot order the States to adopt a specific policy or plan on the grounds that a "better, fairer, or wiser" option is available. As a result, the scope of judicial review in examining government policy matters is extremely limited.
When a PIL asking for the creation of a plan to establish community kitchens in order to fight hunger and malnutrition was being dismissed, the observation was made.

The National Food Security Act (NFSA) and other welfare programs are being implemented by the federal government and individual states, the top court noted, declining to issue any directives in the matter.The legality of the policy—rather than its wisdom or soundness—would be the focus of judicial review, according to a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.

It is commonly known that the judicial review process has a very narrow scope when it comes to policy matters. The courts are not and cannot assess whether a policy is right, appropriate, or suitable. Neither are they the executive's advisers on matters of policy that the executive has the authority to create. Because there may be a better, more equitable, or more sensible option available, the courts cannot order the States to adopt a specific program or policy," the bench stated."We do not propose to give any further direction in that regard when the National Food Security Act (NFSA), which uses a "right based approach" to provide food and nutritional security, is in effect and other welfare schemes under the said Act have also been framed and implemented by the Union of India and the States to ensure access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity."We have not examined whether the concept of community kitchens is a better or wiser alternative available to the States to achieve the object of NFSA, rather we would prefer to leave it open to the States/UTs to explore such alternative welfare schemes as may be permissible under the NFSA," the court stated.

The top court's decision was based on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that was filed by social activists Anun Dhawan, Ishann Singh, and Kunajan Singh. The PIL sought orders for all states and union territories to create a plan for community kitchens in order to fight malnutrition and hunger.