Question

Which of the following statements is untrue?

• A. Policy-making lays in the sole domain of the executive.
• B. The power of judicial review may be exercised on public health policies.
• C. Separation of powers restricts the power of judicial review on public health policies.
• D. Policy-making should be in conformity with the fundamental rights.
• A. Necessary function of the court.
• B. Discretionary power of the court.
• C. Not within the ambit of judicial review.
• D. Unnecessary interference from the court.
• A. The judges are not public health experts, therefore in the absence of expert advice, it would be an undesirable intervention.
• B. The executive needs room for free play while dealing with pandemic.
• C. Constitutional rights are suspended during a pandemic.
• D. Both (A) and (B).
• A. Both (I) and (II) are true.
• B. Both (I) and (II) are untrue.
• C. (I) is true and (II) is untrue.
• D. (II) is true and (I) is untrue.
• A. Vaccination Distribution Policy.
• B. Liberalized Vaccination Policy.
• C. Central Vaccination Distribution Policy.
• D. None of the above.
• A. Entry 6 of List II (State List)
• B. Entry 36 of List II (State List)
• C. Entry 81 of List I (Union List)
• D. Entry 29 of List III (Concurrent List)

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Based on the legal context and an analysis of the Supreme Court of India case "In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021]", we can deduce the following:

• Executive's Authority in Policy-Making: The executive has discretion to formulate policy in the larger interest, especially during a crisis like a pandemic. This discretion is subject to constitutional limitations but not outright nullified by the judiciary.
• Power of Judicial Review: The judiciary can exercise the power of judicial review over executive policies when there is manifest arbitrariness. This includes public health policies, provided there is a constitutional basis for such review.
• Separation of Powers: While separation of powers is a foundational aspect of the Indian Constitution, it does not preclude judicial review of executive actions or policies. Judicial review over public health policies is not inherently restricted by the principle of separation of powers.
• Conformity with Fundamental Rights: Policy-making must align with fundamental rights such as those guaranteed by Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

Thus, the statement "Separation of powers restricts the power of judicial review on public health policies" is untrue, as the judiciary retains oversight capabilities to ensure policies conform to constitutional mandates even within practice areas traditionally led by the executive.

Answer 2

For understanding the role of the judiciary in checking executive policies during a public health crisis, it's essential to examine the judicial stance as illustrated by the Supreme Court of India. During the pandemic, the Court emphasized the importance of judicial review in maintaining constitutional order. Here's a comprehensive analysis:

• Judicial Review: According to the Supreme Court, judicial review is permissible if there is manifest arbitrariness in executive actions. Thus, seeking constitutional justification for executive policies becomes a necessary function of the court.
• Separation of Powers: The court recognized the separation of powers as a basic structure of the Constitution. However, this does not exclude judicial oversight, even in a public health crisis.
• Constitutional Scrutiny: In emergencies, constitutional scrutiny may be transformed, acknowledging the government's role in managing public health. However, this scrutiny cannot be sidelined entirely, even amidst a crisis.
• Judiciary's Guarding Role: The judiciary must protect fundamental rights and should not intervene in executive affairs unless constitutionally mandated.
• Conclusion: The role of the judiciary is integral in ensuring executive policies adhere to constitutional ethos. Therefore,
  Necessary function of the court
  is the correct justification.

Answer 3

Upon analyzing the provided comprehension and the question regarding the Union of India's opposition to judicial intervention, it becomes apparent that the argument rests on two main points:

1. The judges are not public health experts, meaning that without expert advice, judicial intervention could be deemed undesirable. The complexities involved in managing a pandemic require decisions guided by those with proper knowledge and expertise.
2. The executive needs room for free play while dealing with the pandemic. This implies that the executive must have discretion in policy formulation to innovate and respond effectively to the crisis without being unduly constrained by immediate judicial oversight.

The comprehension excerpt illustrates that judicial intervention might be less effective if it hampers the executive's ability to operate with flexibility and expertise-driven actions. The argument is consistent with both option (A) and option (B); thus, the correct answer is:

Both (A) and (B).

Answer 4

Both statements (I) and (II) are true. Below is the detailed explanation:

The principle of separation of powers ensures that the three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judiciary—operate within their appropriate domains without undue interference from each other. However, this principle is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

• Statement (I) notes that the judiciary can intrude into the executive domain if necessary to enforce the Constitution. This is supported by the judiciary's role in reviewing executive actions when they violate or fail to enforce constitutional provisions.
• Statement (II) refers specifically to judicial intervention to safeguard fundamental rights, including life, liberty, or property. As upheld by the Supreme Court, even during emergencies like pandemics, the judiciary remains a guardian of these rights, intervening where governmental actions might infringe upon constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court decision in the Suo Motu Writ Petition concerning the distribution of essential services during the pandemic emphasized that the executive must be allowed discretion in policy-making during such crises. However, judicial review is appropriate in instances of manifest arbitrariness or to protect constitutional rights. The court recognized that a balance must be struck, where the judiciary respects the executive's domain yet remains vigilant in protecting individual rights and the Constitution.

Answer 5

In the case titled "In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic," the Supreme Court of India reviewed the Central Government's policy on vaccine procurement and distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic. The specific policy under examination was the "Liberalized Vaccination Policy." This was a key policy framework that allowed for the distribution of vaccines across different population categories.

Key points from the Supreme Court's examination of the policy include:

• The Union of India argued for the necessity of discretion in policy formulation during the crisis, emphasizing that the executive should be trusted to act in the larger interest of society.
• The policy was claimed to conform with Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, indicating equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.
• The government suggested that interference by courts should only occur in cases of manifest arbitrariness, especially when addressing a health crisis with expert medical and scientific considerations.
• The court acknowledged the necessity for public health measures during a pandemic and recognized that constitutional scrutiny might be transformed in such emergencies.

The policy in question is referred to as the "Liberalized Vaccination Policy," making it the correct answer to the provided options:

• Vaccination Distribution Policy.
• Liberalized Vaccination Policy.
• Central Vaccination Distribution Policy.
• None of the above.

Answer 6

Public health is listed under the Constitution of India within the Seventh Schedule, which delineates the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Union and State governments. Specifically, the subject of public health is categorized under:

Entry 6 of List II (State List) 

This indicates that the state governments have the primary responsibility and authority to legislate on matters related to public health within their respective states.

The Seventh Schedule outlines three lists:

• List I (Union List): Matters on which only the Union or central government can legislate.
• List II (State List): Matters on which only the state governments can legislate.
• List III (Concurrent List): Matters on which both the Union and state governments can legislate, though Union law prevails in case of conflict.

The inclusion of public health in the State List reflects the importance of local governance in addressing the health needs and challenges specific to an individual state. This allows each state to tailor its public health policies in accordance with its unique demographic and health requirements.