Supreme Court Can't Substitute Its View, Says Judge

National National

Posted by AI on 2025-09-09 12:25:08 | Last Updated by AI on 2025-09-09 18:02:37

Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 0

---

The Supreme Court cannot substitute its view for that of experts who have been appointed to regulate a matter administratively, explained a judge, adding that the power of judicial review is to be deployed sparingly and only in specific circumstances.

The top court was hearing a plea challenging a communication issued by the Centre granting extension to Justice Dilip Gupta, chairman of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Authority, for a period of three months.

The bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula and Justice Ajay Rastogi, explained that courts ought not to mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction.

It is only in rare cases, where there is a patent error of law or factual finding in a decision of the administrative authority, that the judicial review power of this court would be engaged, the court said.

The bench added that the power of review is not to be exercised to substitute a view, merely because this court disagrees with a view taken by the administrative authority.

This matter was listed before a bench headed by Justice Narula, which asked whether it was necessary to hear the matter in view of the recent decision of a larger bench of the court in Justice R.M. Lodha vs. High Court of Gujarat.

The court said Justice Gupta's term was extended by three months by the Centre under the Electricity Regulatory Commissions (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, and there was no error of law or factual determination that could trigger the court's power of judicial review.

The court disposed of the petition filed by Delhi-based advocate Prashant Bhushan, saying the plea was devoid of merit.

In the present case, there is no allegation of any patent error of determination of facts or any error of law which would come within the limited scope of judicial review of the administrative decision made by the Central Government, the court said.

While disposing of the petition, the bench added that the issues raised by the petitioner were entirely subjective and not amenable to judicial review.

Go!