LLM Notes: What are the factors which play an important role in the decision making in Indian courts?

 Several factors influence judicial decision-making in Indian courts. These factors can be broadly categorized into legal, extralegal, and systemic considerations. Below is a detailed explanation of these factors:

Legal Factors

1. Statutory Provisions: Courts primarily rely on the Constitution, statutes, and codified laws to decide cases. Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, for example, play a crucial role in ensuring justice and fairness.

Print Page

When court should interefere in tender process?

 Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)[2] it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us.

12. In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay[3] it was held that the constitutional Courts are concerned with the decision making process. Tata Cellular v. Union of India[4] went a step further and held that a decision if challenged (the decision having been arrived at through a valid process), the constitutional Courts can interfere if the decision is perverse. However, the constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute its view for that of the administrative authority. This was confirmed in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa[5] as mentioned in Central Coalfields.

13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & ANR.

[Civil Appeal No. 9078 of 2016]

[Civil Appeal No. 9079 of 2016]

[Civil Appeal Nos. 9080-9081 of 2016]

Madan B. Lokur, J.

Dated:September 15, 2016

Print Page