The Supreme Court ruled that government policy decisions issued through circulars are binding and cannot be ignored without lawful amendment or justification. Any action taken in violation of such policy is arbitrary and breaches Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that when a government makes a policy, it is bound by it. If the government acts against its own policy without properly amending it or giving a valid reason, such action is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before law.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court that had overturned an earlier order of a Single Judge. The Single Judge had quashed a government notification that named two newly created revenue villages after individuals who had donated land for those villages.
While deciding the case, the Supreme Court Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe strongly reaffirmed the binding nature of government policies.
The Court observed,
“The aforesaid circular is in the nature of a policy decision. Clause 4 of the circular has been incorporated with an object to maintain communal harmony. It is well settled in law that a policy decision though executive in nature binds the Government, and the Government cannot act contrary thereto, unless the policy is lawfully amended or withdrawn. Any action taken in derogation of such a policy, without amendment or valid justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The appeal arose from a dispute concerning the creation and naming of two new revenue villages in Rajasthan. The State Government, exercising its powers under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, issued a notification creating two separate revenue villages—Amargarh and Sagatsar—from Meghwalo Ki Dhani, which earlier formed part of Revenue Village Sohda in Barmer district.
Following this notification, the District Collector issued an order specifying the boundaries and population of the newly formed villages.
Subsequently, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department of the Rajasthan Government issued directions for reorganisation and creation of new Gram Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis, authorising District Collectors to act under Sections 9, 10 and 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
As part of this process, a public notice was issued inviting objections from villagers. During this stage, villagers from Meghwalo Ki Dhani raised objections, stating that the names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” were derived from the names of individuals, which was against government policy.
Challenging the notification, the appellants approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge accepted their contention and held that the names of the revenue villages were indeed derived from the names of individuals—Amarram and Sagat Singh—who had also agreed to donate land.
The Single Judge quashed the notification insofar as it related to the naming of the two villages.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside this order, holding that the statutory procedure for creation of revenue villages had been followed. The Division Bench also took the view that the government circular relied upon by the petitioners was only directory in nature.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the High Court’s Division Bench failed to consider a crucial fact—that the village names were directly based on individual names, in clear violation of a government circular issued on 20.08.2009. Clause 4 of this circular specifically prohibited naming villages after individuals to maintain communal harmony.
On the other hand, the State defended its action by stating that all statutory requirements had been complied with and that the circular did not have mandatory force.
Rejecting the State’s argument, the Supreme Court held that the policy circular was binding and could not be ignored.
The Court noted,
“Admittedly, the names of the Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar, are derived from the names of the individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh. The notification dated 31.12.2020 is, therefore, in contravention of Clause 4 of the Circular dated 20.08.2009. The State Government cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the policy framed by it, which binds it. Therefore, no legal sanctity can be attached to the impugned notification dated 31.12.2020, insofar as it pertains to Revenue Villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar.”
The Supreme Court further criticised the High Court’s Division Bench for limiting its analysis to earlier judgments and not deciding the matter on its own merits.
The Court observed,
“The Division Bench failed to consider this material aspect and erred in limiting its consideration only to the applicability of earlier decisions in Moola Ram and Joga Ram (supra). In any case, the lis pending before a Court is required to be adjudicated on merits.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the Single Judge, effectively striking down the notification that named the revenue villages after individuals.
ALSO READ: “Ice cream not a luxury item”: Chhattisgarh HC
The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi, Advocate-on-Record Manish K. Bishnoi and Advocate Karan Bishnoi.
The respondents were represented by Advocate Vivek Firoda, Advocate Hanuman Ram Mundan, Advocate Sharwan Kumar Godara, Advocate-on-Record Shubham Jain, Advocate Aneesha Rastogi and Advocate-on-Record S. Udaya Kumar Sagar.
This judgment reinforces an important constitutional principle: the government must follow its own policies, and any arbitrary deviation without lawful justification will not survive judicial scrutiny under Article 14.
Case Title:
Bhika Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Article 14 of the Constitution
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
