In public interest jurisdiction, the Court has to look at the "big picture" (Representational)
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that had sought quashing of Ministry of Minority Affairs's decision to dissolve the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF).
The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna stated that this Court finds no merit in the present petition and is not inclined to interfere in the considered decision taken by the respondents. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, along with the pending applications.
The bench observed that it is seen that the decision to dissolve the MAEF is a well-considered decision, duly taken by the General Body of the MAEF in terms of the authority vested in it by way of the Bye Laws of the MAEF and as per the provisions of the Act, 1860.
This Court is not impressed by the various submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners with respect to dissolution of MAEF not being in conformity with the Act, 1860 or with regard to transfer of its funds. The decision to dissolve the MAEF has been duly taken by the General Body of the MAEF and this Court finds no impropriety or irregularity in the process adopted by the said General Body in arriving at the said decision, according to the order.
In any event, this Court, in public interest jurisdiction (unlike civil original jurisdiction) is not supposed to examine and give a finding with respect to each and every procedural or statutory violation.
In public interest jurisdiction, the Court has to look at the "big picture" and ensure that the cause of the minorities, in particular the minority girl students, as canvassed by the Petitioners, is not prejudiced.
Consequently, this Court takes notice of the various welfare schemes being carried out by the respondent Ministry to cater to the specific interests of the educational and vocational needs of the minority communities, including girls belonging to the said communities.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the schemes of the respondent Ministry do not have objects similar to that of the MAEF, cannot be accepted, the order stated.
Even otherwise, the scope of judicial review of the policy decisions taken by the government is very limited. Once a policy has been formulated by the government and a decision has been taken thereto, it is not for this Court to interfere in the said policy, only on the ground that a better policy could have been evolved.
The plea moved by Professor Syeda Saiyidain Hameda and others through Senior Advocate Anand Grover and Advicate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi stated that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent ministry placed on record the minutes of the meeting of the General Body of MAEF held on March 7, wherein a unanimous decision to dissolve the MAEF was taken.
The plea stated that the manner in which the impugned order dated February 7 has been passed, is thoroughly perverse, illegal and guided by malafides. The same is dehors of all the statutory provisions as well as the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of the Society.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)