Highlights: Govt on Supreme Court's 2G opinion

• The court has categorically held that the predominant consideration is common good and nor revenue maximisation.
• There are other objectives are equally compelling and equally deserving of being pursued by the government.
  
• What will determine right or wrong is "common good." The court has recognised this in the past.
• There have been cases have not followed an auction and court has upheld the government's decision
• Where revenue maximisation is the goal, auction is an attractive and preferred means - the words are pregnant with meaning.
• Where economic policies are made court cannot and should not sit in judgment on those choices.
• In every way we believe that the position of the government that has been articulated over the past 2 years, the court has observed and laid down principles completely in consonance.

Kapil Sibal:

• The assumption that scarce natural resource that should always be disposed through auction has been rejected - so there is no mandate to auction  for scarce natural resources.
• To derive auction as a constitutional principle only for a limited set of situations would be odd.
• Many of the policies followed by the government and the previous governments is based on the principle that revenue maximisation is not the objective - court has said in that case auction is not the only way. It also observed, allocation to the highest bidder may sometimes run counter to public good.
• Court has said potential for abuse cannot be the basis for striking it down. Even auction has the potential of abuse.
• Methodology pertaining to the disposal of natural resources is clearly an economic policy - and that cannot be struck down, nor does the constitution mandate to distribute natural resources through auction alone.
• Supreme Court makes a distinction between policy and means - implementation can be struck down... distinction between policy and executive action.