Don’t make general observations, avoid sweeping statements: Supreme Court to HCs

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked high courts to refrain from making sweeping observations “which are beyond the contours” of the issue they are dealing with.
“We advise the high courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The high courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them,” a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said while expunging certain comments from a Delhi High Court order.
The ruling came on an appeal filed the Centre against a January 19 order of Delhi HC on a plea a firm which alleged discrimination in the award of a tender. The HC declined to interfere in the tender proceedings, as substantial time had elapsed since it was awarded.
However, it allowed the petitioner to give a representation to the Prime Miner. The HC said, “We also permit the petitioner to make a representation addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Miner of India highlighting the aspects with regard to wrongful evaluation of the bids and discrimination meted out to some of the bidders. In case such a representation is made, we request the PMO to ensure that the same receives the attention of the Hon’ble Prime Miner of India.”

The HC said it is “inclined to grant this liberty to the petitioner in the light of the fact that the petitioner is an Indian manufacturer and we had earlier found merit in the claim of the petitioner in” another case “that Indian bidders are being discriminated against, even though the tender conditions itself stipulated that Indian manufacturers would be given preference”.

It said that “keeping in view the fact that the Government of India is laying emphasis on ‘Make in India (Atma-Nirbharta)’, the grievances of the petitioner appear to be correct and, in our view, require serious consideration at the highest level”.
Hearing the Centre’s appeal, which urged the court to expunge the remarks, the SC bench said, “We are of the opinion that the observations made the High Court…were absolutely unwarranted.”

The top court said the HC “was not deciding a Public Interest Litigation. The High Court did not even decide the writ petition on merits. On the contrary…it was observed that it had not gone into the merits of the writ petitioner’s claim or the respondent’s defence. In such circumstances, such general observations should have been avoided the High Court and the High Court ought to have restricted itself to the controversy between the parties before it.
“Even otherwise, on the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against.”