In a recent judgment on February 20, 2024 the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of arbitrary executive actions and the necessity for judicial restraint in academic matters. 

The bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, emphasized upon the critical role of courts in ensuring accountability and rectification of wrongful acts while respecting the flexibility required in executive functioning.

Central to the judgment was the principle that while constitutional courts have a primary duty to control power and set aside illegal or arbitrary administrative actions, they must also address the injurious consequences arising from such actions. The bench asserted “We are of the opinion that while the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power.”

The bench also highlighted the overarching constitutional purpose of taking reasonable measures to restitute the injured parties affected by arbitrary or illegal actions.

The case in question involved an appeal by Manoj Kumar, who was denied appointment to the post of primary teacher in an institute due to the non-computation of marks for his post-graduation degree by the Union government. 

The bench unequivocally deemed the government's action as illegal and arbitrary, yet acknowledged the unfortunate reality that the closure of the school prevented the reinstatement of Kumar to his rightful position.

In recognizing the limitations posed by the passage of time in seeking restitution, the Supreme Court articulated the necessity for constitutional courts to transcend temporal constraints and fulfill their primary duty of regulating power and addressing arbitrary actions. The bench cautioned against dismissing writ proceedings solely based on perceived futility due to the passage of time, stressing the need to uphold the purpose of public law proceedings.

However, the court also grappled with systemic issues inherent in the adversarial judicial process, particularly the protracted timelines involved in litigation. Acknowledging the distressing delays in the dispensation of justice, the bench underscored the imperative to find solutions to expedite proceedings and preserve the rights of parties awaiting final determination.

In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court directed the institute to compensate Kumar with Rs one lakh, along with Rs 25,000 as costs. The court commended Kumar's steadfast pursuit of justice, likening his resolve to that of the legendary Vikram from ancient folklore.

"We appreciate the spirit of the appellant who has steadfastly contested his case like the legendary Vikram (Against Betala, in the famous Vetalapancavimsati, the original being the Kathasaritsagara work of the 11th Century by Somadeva from the year 2017), when he was illegally denied the appointment by the executive order dated 22.05.2017, which we have set aside as being illegal and arbitrary," the bench went on to say.

Case: Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2679/2024 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 5278 /2019.

Click to read/download judgment