Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A petition was filed in the Odisha High Court challenging the government action to review a telemedicine policy, making technology available across the state of Odisha and thereby ultimately help the people of Odisha. Over the span of the trial, the High Court had called upon the State to record a sworn statement enumerating the means taken by the legislature as respects the choice of business visionaries. The State had recorded its answer giving insights about the determination of business people, the status of advances authorized and dispensed, in addition to other things. The State had additionally put on record its complaint with respect to lacking information on the genuine advantages given by the opening of telemedicine hubs by the Respondent association.
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra and Ankit Agarwal, appearing for the state of Odisha argued that the High Court was violating the doctrine of separation of powers, by restraining the state from reviewing its policy.
When the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose held the order of the Odisha High Court as inappropriate and set it aside. The Supreme Court held that the Odisha High Court had no power to pass an order in a matter which was exclusively and extensively in the executive domain.
The Supreme Court disapproved the High Court order by giving the below reason among many:
“We are clearly of the view that there was no valid justification to restrain the State from reviewing its policy and from formulating an appropriate policy to govern telemedicine centres in the State of Odisha. This is a matter which is purely in the executive domain. The High Court was not justified in entrusting the exercise of verification to a former Judge of that Court."
86540
103860
630
114
59824