Yesterday, the Apex Court held that the public at large does not have the right to be heard before a policy is formulated and implemented. A division bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made the observation on a plea challenging a decision of the Centre Government which on the recommendation of the Odisha government, had abolished the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT).

The bench dismissed an argument of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association discussed the principles of natural justice have been violated by the Centre and the state government by failing to provide the association and the litigants before the OAT with an opportunity to be heard before abolishing the tribunal.

The Court observed,

"The decision to establish, continue or abolish the OAT is in the nature of a policy formulated and implemented by the State Government (acting with the Union Government under the Administrative Tribunals Act)."

"The public at large does not have a right to be heard before a policy is formulated and implemented. The process of consultation with the public, with experts, and with other stakeholders may be desirable and would facilitate a participatory democracy," it said.

However, the Court held each member of the class that would be impacted by a policy decision cannot be afforded an opportunity for a hearing.

"This would not only be time-consuming and expensive, but deeply impractical", it said, adding that the absence of a right to be heard before the formulation or implementation of a policy does not mean that affected parties are precluded from challenging the policy in a court of law.

"What it means is that a policy decision cannot be struck down on the ground that it was arrived at without offering the members of the public at large (or some section of it) an opportunity to be heard. The challenge to a policy may be sustainable if it is found to vitiate constitutional rights or is otherwise in breach of a mandate of law," the bench said.

It said that the decision to abolish the OAT cannot be assailed on the ground that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice.