It is unlikely that the Chief Minister of Chattisgarh, Ajit Jogi, will spare a few moments to mull over the full implications of the Supreme Court verdict in the Balco case. Therefore, the opposition parties in the newly-created State would do well to carry the message of the SC to Jogi. Which is that Jogi from the word go was wrong in his approach towards the disinvestment of 51 per cent of the government stake in Balco to Sterlite Industries for Rs 551.50 crores. Jogi did everything possible to play an obstructionist role in the sale of Balco and with that objective in view made wholly irresponsible and baseless charges.
The apex court in its verdict on Monday did not find an iota of truth in the Chattisgarh Government's claims regarding the Balco disinvestment. Castigating the Jogi Government for making wild allegations, the three-member bench,said in its judgement that "it is a matter of regret that on behalf of the State such allegations against the Union of India have been made without any basis."

The court said that it "strongly deprecates such unfounded averments which have been made by an officer of the State." In normal times, the sharp indictment of the Chhatisgarh Government would have led to the resignation of the State Chief Minister. But then in normal times someone as venal and irresponsible as Jogi would not have been able to head a State administration. Now so sharp has been the erosion in moral values that only people like Jogi seem to become Chief Ministers.

Therefore, to expect Jogi to resign in the wake of the severe indictment of his and his Government's irresponsible conduct in the case of the Balco disinvestment is to really expect much too much from him. He would brazen out the SC verdict. However Jogi's shamelessness should in no case deter the opposition in Chattisgarh to try and bring home to it the full implications of the SC verdict.

One of the most significant features of the verdict is the pronouncement by the court that in the shaping of the nation's economic and administrative policy it cannot be an active party. The SC declared that " courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country". Very true.

This should come as welcome relief to all those who had rightly been concerned about the overweening zeal of the PIL industry. The courts of late had poached on the newer and still newer areas belonging to the executive. True, extraneous reasons often swayed the executive's


decisions and thus validated judicial intervention but as a rule the powers of the two limbs of the Constitution were wholly separate and should remain so.
Justice B. N. Kirpal, who wrote the judgement for the bench, put it rather well when he said that, " in the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect in conducting any inquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgement of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself." Further, " wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution."

Jogi, who shouted the loudest in opposition to the Balco sale to Sterlite in order to win brownie points from his party leaders in New Delhi, did not offer a shred of evidence to support the astounding charge that Rs one hundred crores had been given in bribes for the sale. Nor did he come up with the stated price of Rs 551.50 crores on behalf of the Chattisgarh Government to buy the majority stake in Balco.

Instead, he resorted to underhand means to create obstructions in the path of disinvestment and egged on Balco employees to resort to strike and protest agitation in order to prevent the hand-over of the unit to Sterlite Industries. In fact, Jogi behaved so recklessly that at one stage he threatened to cancel the land lease to Balco. The court remarked that the Chattisgarh Government could not question the correctness of its own action taken years ago and that the land lease was valid and correct.

Quite clearly the verdict will come as a shot in the arm for the spluttering disinvestment process. The apex court has pooh-poohed the tendency to question every decision through a PIL. In the case of Balco sale the charge that there was no transparency and that the decision was taken in a hurry had no basis. Only in case of a clear mala fide or an arbitrary decision will the court agree to interfere in the disinvestment process.

Otherwise, the court has clearly laid down the law that it does not seek to entertain PILs pertaining to the sale of government stake in public undertakings. The SC observed, " Every matter of public interest or curiosity could not be the subject matter of a PIL." Hopefully, other courts in the country will soon take their cue from the apex court and stop entertaining all manner of PILs filed with the sole objective of stopping the executive from performing its statutory role.