Scope of Judicial Review – Matters concerning contractual relationship of the State or its instrumentality with private participation, particularly regarding scope and ambit of work and finances – Scope of judicial review limited – Issues such as mutual obligations, including the apportionment of expenditure that contracting parties must bear – Beyond the scrutiny of the High Court in a PIL – Impugned directions of the High Court set aside – Appeals partly allowed: Held: Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Appellant, a private party, and Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu (SDAT), the nodal governmental authority, to conduct Formula 4 motorsport racing – PIL filed in High Court raising several objections against event – High Court vide impugned order decided not to interfere with the government’s policy decision but issued directions modifying the terms of the MoU – Held, once the High Court was satisfied that the decision to hold the event was a policy matter, it could not have proceeded to interfere in the terms of the MoU – Issues such as the mutual obligations of the contracting parties, including the apportionment of expenditure are beyond the scope of judicial review in a PIL – Direction to government to conduct such sports events on its own ignores the principle of public-private partnership adopted by governments as a matter of good governance – Impugned directions cannot be sustained in law. [Paras 18-23]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Aishani Narain, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.