Thaindian News

New Delhi, July 25 (IANS) The central government told the Supreme Court Wednesday that courts could not interfere in policy matters.

“Policy can be impugned in the court only if, on the face of it, it is so patently unreasonable which a reasonable person could not have propounded and is based on extraneous reasons and is in breach of fundamental rights,” Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati told the apex court.

The apex court constitution bench comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice D.K. Jain, Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a presidential reference whether auction was the only method of allocating natural resources as held by the top court in its 2G verdict in February.

Urging the court to answer the reference, the attorney general said that such an answer to the reference would not in any way impact the court’s verdict in the 2G case wherein 122 licences were cancelled.

The attorney general said that as directed by the court in the 2G verdict, the government was going ahead with the auction of the 122 licences and the spectrum.

If the court gave its opinion on the presidential reference it would have no bearing on the 2G verdict. There would be no attempt to take advantage of the court’s opinion, he said.

Vahanvati said this in the wake of an observation by Justice Jain who said that “If we touch or comment on the ratio of 2G verdict and at the same time we propound a law, will it not amount to commenting on it?”

“If we say something or lay a law on the methodology of allocation of natural resources then in a way we are commenting on the judgment of this court,” the court said.

Vahanvati told the court that “lay down the correct law and not comment on the 2G verdict”.

Justice Jain told Vahanvati that if the court laid down such a law then every thing said in the 2G verdict will also come under it.

The attorney general told the court that auction being the sole route was only limited to the allocation of 122 licences and spectrum.

The only reason why the government was not making a commitment for all times to come was that tomorrow the technology may change and the government may not stick to auction, he said.

The court said that it was not laying down the law for all times to come but on the basis of things as they stood today.

The hearing will continue Thursday.