Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of Karnataka High Court comprising Justices Krishna Dixit and Krishna Bhat have opined that courts, under the guise of judicial review, cannot run the government. The bench has further opined that when a measure is taken by the government upon considering expert opinion and making policy decisions, courts should refrain from acting like a ‘super-accountant’.

The bench made the above observations, while dismissing a plea challenging the land acquisitions made for implementation of the Upper Krishna Project (UKP) which would then be used for  irrigating of large pockets of land in various districts of Uttara Karnataka. The court conveyed in the judgment that the judicial interference in matters such as this, should be limited.

The court while passing the judgment considered that UKP, was brought about to address the issue of severe droughts affecting many parts of Uttara Karnataka. In 2010, the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal had called for an increase in the height of the River's dam. However, this submerged large portions of land. The government had issued a notification to establish townships in order to rehabilitate and resettle people who were going to be displaced on account of the flooding, this notification was challenged before the court. When the single judge refused the entertain the plea, the same came for consideration before division bench.

The bench, has observed that it is the primary task of the Government to govern and that "smelling foul play in the action of the government, at a mere suggestion would make running the administration an impossibility".

The court has held that the elected governments which are accountable to be people, will find it difficult to implement public welfare projects.

The court has opined that it is not for the court to act as an expert in such matters and substitute its own view, in the place of that of the executive. It has further been opined that , “in matters such as this, the appeal is to the ballot and not to the courts.”

The division bench, has in its order recorded that the courts have neither the political mandate, nor the expertise to decide matters such as this.

The acquisition was challenged by the owner of the land, on the ground that it was not supported by public purpose and was a colourable exercise of power.

The court held that declaration of public purpose in the acquisition notification is considered final, excepting in case where exercise of power or fraud on power is demonstrated before the court.

The Bench, in its conclusion, made it clear that the courts can intervene only there is violation of the constitutional right. The Court opined that it could not substitute its opinion with that of a trained town planner.

Case title: Gopal Vs State of Karnataka