SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (IV) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 331, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Hearing Adjourned
Segment: Issues
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 331 
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (IV) 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 of2015) 
MAY 13, 2016. 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Public interest litigation - Issues as regards relief for crop 
loss, establishing fodder banks, crop loan re-structuring or 
restructuring bank loans - Prevailing drought or drought like 
C 
situation - Prayer that the relief or subsidy extremely low and only 
where crop Joss is 33% and above, relief subsidy to be adequate 
and to be given timely - Also sought effective management of the 
Fodder Banks in the drought affected areas and establishment of 
Fodder Banks where no such bank established; and deferment of 
arrears and restructuring of loans for the drought affected farmers 
D 
- Held: Quantum of monetary relief given to a farmer is a matter of 
policy - Issues regarding establishing fodder banks or restructuring 
bank loans is to be decided by expert, even then there is likely to be 
difference of opinion between the experts - In view thereof, there 
cannot be any judicially manageable standards for determining E 
issues of policy and it would be hazardous if not dangerous for the 
Court to venture into such areas in which the court lacks expertise 
- Implementation of the economic and fiscal policy or policy 
impacting on drought effected persons and its_ monitoring to be seen 
- In the process thereof, Union of India and State Governments to 
set up committees or ombudsmen to see the faithful
implementation 
F 
of the polices - Issuance of direction to the concerned authorities 
in Union of India, State Governments and Reserve _Bank of India 
and other banks to religiously implement their policies - As regards, 
appointment of Court Commissioners to oversee the implementation 
of various directions issued, there is no need for now - Applying G 
theprinciple of continuing mandamus, petition ought not be disposed 
of but should be kept pending to ensure that the directions that 
have been given are complied with by the Government of India as 
well as the State Governments - Direction to Union of India to file 
a status report stating the action taken by the Government of India 
331 
H
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
on the various directions - Doctrines/principles - Principle of 
continuing mandamus - Constitution of India - Art. 32. 
Constitution of India - Mandamus - Principle of continuing 
mandamus - Held: Is an integral part of our constitutional 
iurisprudence - Jn many public interest petitions, this Court has 
B 
continued to monitor the implementation of its orders and monitor 
the investigations into alleged offences where there has been some 
apparent resistance by the Government of India. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Essar Steels Ltd. v. Union of India 2016 (4) SCALE 
267 : MANU/SC/043112016; Centre for Public Interest 
Litigation v. Union of India 2016 (3) SCALE 712 : 
MANU/SC/0372/2016; MP. Oil Extraction v. State of 
Madhya Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 592 : 1997 (1) Suppl. 
SCR 671; Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. 
Union of India (2009) 7 SCC 561 : 2009 (9) SCR 225; 
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. 
Reserve Bank of India (1992) 2 SCC 343 : 1992 (1) 
SCR 406 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2016 (4) SCALE 267 
referred to 
Para 22 
2016 (3) SCALE 712 
referred to 
Para 23 
1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 671 
referred to 
Para 23 
2009 (9) SCR 225 
referred to 
Para23 
.1992 (1) SCR 406 
referred to 
Para23 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
857 of2015. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
Prashant Bhushan, Roh it Kr. Singh, Govind Jee, 0. Kuttan, Advs., 
G for the Petitioner. 
P.S. Narasimha,
Tushar Mehta, ASGs, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., 
Anil Grover, Irshad Ahmad, AAGs, Mukul'Singh, Irhan George, Ajay 
Sharma, Sridhar Potaraju, B.K. Satija, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Guntur 
Prabhakar, Ms. Prema Singh, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar,A.P. Mayee, 
H Ms. Shashi Juneja, A. Selvin Raja, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Kabir Hathi,
' 
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (IV) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
333 
Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Manan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Tapesh 
A 
Kumar Singh, Kumar Anurag Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Shashank Singh, 
V. N. Raghupathy, C. D. Singh, Ms.· Sylona Mahapatra, Udit Arora, 
Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Umakant Mishra, 
S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Upendra Mishra, Vinay 
Garg, Advs., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MADAN B. LO KUR, J. 1. In three earlier decisions concerning 
the prevailing drought or drought-like situation, we had stressed the 
obligation of the Government oflndia complying with all the provisions 
B 
of the laws enacted by Parliament, namely, the Disaster Management c 
Act, 2005, the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Mahatma Gandhi 
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. This will, ofnecessity, 
require establishing and constituting bodies and authorities provided for 
by law and making available the necessary finances for implementing 
and abiding by the law. The State cannot say that it is not bound to 
follow the law and cannot adhere to statutory provisions enacted by 
D 
Parliament and create a smokescreen of a lack of finances or some 
other cover-up. The rule of law binds everyone, including the State. 
2. In this decision, we concern ourselves with the remaining 
substantive issues raised by the petitioner Swaraj Abhiyan. 
E 
Relief for Crop Loss 
3. The grievance of Swaraj Abhiyan is
that the 'Crop Input 
Advance' or the 'Agricultural Input Subsidy' offered by the Government 
oflndia is far too low and in the event of a drought, the monetary relief 
(compensation or ex gratia) received by a farmer does not even cover 
F 
the cost of cultivation of crops. Reference is made to the cost of 
cultivation of some principal crops in India relating to 2015-16 (average 
2010-11 to 2012-13) obtained from the Comprehensive Scheme for 
Studying the Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India by the 
Directorate of Economics and Statistics in the Ministry of Agriculture. 
By way of illustration, it has been pointed out that in respect of some 
G 
Kharif crops such as paddy, the cost per hectare is Rs. 42,441; for maize 
it is Rs. 31,492 per hectare; for jowar it is Rs. 27,292 per hectare; for 
bajra it is Rs. 19,558 per hectare. 
4. According to the petitioner, in terms of the norms. of assistance 
H
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A from the States Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and the National 
Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) the input subsidy where the crop loss 
is 33% and above for agriculture crops, horticulture crops and annual 
plantation crops is Rs. 6,800/- per hectare in rainfed areas and restricted 
to sown areas; Rs.13,500/-per hectare in assured irrigated areas, subject 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
to minimum assistance not less than Rs. 1,000 and restricted to sown 
areas. Reference in this regard is made to a letter dated 81h April, 2015 
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Disaster Management Division). 
This is said to be clearly insufficient. 
5. On these broad facts, the first prayer made by the petitioner is 
that the relief or subsidy is extremely low and only where the crop loss 
is 33% and above .. The amount should be realistic and there is no reason 
why an arbitrary figure of33% of crop loss should be fixed. It is submitted 
that the subsidy is a safety net for farmers in times of distress and 
therefore the compensation should be far more realistic in the event of a 
failed crop. 
6. The second prayer is connected with the first prayer and is to 
the effect that farmers should be given immediate relief for crop loss for 
the year 2015-16. The relief or subsidy should not be only adequate but 
should also be given timely with the entire process being transparent so 
that there is no allegation of corruption. 
7. In response, the Union oflndia
submits that under Section 46 
of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the Central Government has 
constituted a National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) for meeting 
any threatening disaster situation or disaster. This is exclusively for the 
purposes ofalleviating the adverse impact ofa disaster. Similarly, under 
Section 48 of the Disaster Management Act, the State Governments 
have constituted a fund called the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). 
8. The I41h Finance Commission has recommended an allocation 
of Rs. 61,219 crores as the aggregate corpus for the SDRF for the 
period 2015-20. The norms for providing financial assistance have been 
G revised on 81h April, 2015 (as mentioned above) and the Agricultural 
Input Subsidy that was earlier Rs. 4,500 per hectare with the crop loss 
being 50% and above has since been revised upward by an order dated 
811t April, 2015 to Rs. 6,800 per hectare where a crop loss is 33% and 
above in respect ofrainfed areas. Similarly, there has been an upward 
revision in respect of irrigated areas and perennial areas. It is therefore 
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (IV) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
335 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
submitted that adequate provision has been made in this regard and the 
A 
State Governments, even in the drought affected States, are entitled to 
utilize the funds available in terms of the norms laid down. 
9. It is further submitted that in addition to the amount 
recommended by the l 4'h Finance Commissio_n towards the SDRF, the 
Government oflndia has also approved a sum ofabout Rs. 12,774 crores 
B 
from the NDRF to the State Governments in the grip of drought. This 
amount is also considerably enhanced from the amount made available 
in previous years. 
l 0. It is further submitted that the norms are not a compensatory 
measure but are a measure of immediate relief. Therefore, to require c 
payment of the exact amount of subsidy as determined by the Directorate 
of Economics and Statistics in the Ministry of Agriculture would not be 
appropriate. 
11. With regard to the funds in the NDRF, it is submitted that the 
basis of the fund is the estimated tax revenue collection in the form of D 
National Calamity Contingency Duty imposed on Union Excise and 
Customs and releases are made to the State Governments by the Ministry 
of Finance of the Government oflndia from this provision. 
Fodder Banks 
12. The grievance of the petitioner in this regard is that even 
though a Fodder Bank has been established under the Centrally Sponsored-
Fodder and Feed Development Scheme and the National Mission for
Protein Supplements for the areas notified as drought affected in 2012, 
the benefits under this Scheme and Mission have not been extended to 
all drought affected areas in the country for the year 2015-16 and 2016-
17. It is prayed that the Scheme and Mission be extended to all drought 
affected areas and there should be no financial cap on support for this 
component. It is further submitted that in anticipation of drought the 
Union oflndia had issued a detailed Advisory on J 2•h September, 2012 
and that should be implemented in letter and spirit. _ 
13. The purpose of the Fodder Bank is to meet the requirement of 
livestock in areas notified as drought affected. Fodder Banks are 
expected to facilitate procurement and storage of fodder from surplus 
areas or areas where rainfall is satisfactory and this fodder can be than 
distributed to cattle camps and deficient areas. To reduce the cost of 
E 
F 
G 
H
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 
A establishment of a Fodder Bank, it appears to have been recommended 
that low capacity tractor mountable fodder block machine should be 
used as far as feasible. 
14. The prayer of the petitioner in this respect is for the effective 
management of the Fodder Banks in the drought affected areas and for 
B the establishment of Fodder Banks where no such bank has been 
established in a drought affected area. 
15. The response of the Union of India is that apart from the 
above-mentioned Scheme and Mission, the Department of Animal 
Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries is implementing the National Live 
c Stock Mission and one of the sub-missions of this Mission is feed and 
fodder development. The State Governments can avail financial 
assistance under the sub-mission. 
16. In addition, the Central Govemment has approved an Additional 
Fodder Development Programme as a special scheme of the Rashtriya 
D Krishi Vikas Yojna for the year 2015-16 to mitigate the adverse impact 
of drm1ght in drought affected districts/blocks of the country. Funds 
have been allocated for this purpose to various States as per the cost 
norms. 
E 
F 
Crop Loan Re-structuring and Relief 
17. In this regard, the submission of the petitioner is that deferment 
of arrears and re-structuring of loans is an important aspect ofrelieffor 
the drought affected farmers and necessary directions should be given 
to Rural and Cooperative Non-Scheduled Banks, Scheduled
Banks 
including Nationalized Banks etc. to abide by the guidelines issued by 
the Reserve Bank oflndia. The State Level Bankers Committees have 
considerable discretion in the matter of deferment of arrears and re-
structuring of loans with the result that re-structuring has not taken place 
as per the guidelines in several States. The prayer of the petitioner 
therefore is to have a more realistic deferment of arrears and re-
structuring of loans by all the concerned banks, particularly in respect of 
G farmers in drought affected areas. 
H 
18. In response, it is stated by the Union oflndia that the Reserve 
Bank oflndia has issued a Master Circular on 1st July, 2015 (updated up 
to 21st August, 2015) while NA BARD has issued a circular on 261h 
August, 2015 addressed to all Cooperative Banks and Regional Rural
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (IV) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
337 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
Banks recommending a moratorium of one year in re-structuring the 
A 
loans of borrowers affected by a natural calamity. However, over-due 
loans are not included since they are not attributed to a natural calamity. 
Notwithstanding this, there is no prohibition on any bank from re-
structuring any loan including any over-due loan subject to the guidelines 
of the Reserve Bank oflndia and in accordance with their internal policy 
B 
guidelines. 
Discussion and conclusions 
19. lt is quite apparent from the submissions made and the reliefs 
claimed that essentially the concerns raised pertain to policy, whether 
ecqnomic and fiscal policy or policy impacting on drought effected c 
persons. We are certainly not equipped to commend the view expressed 
by the petitioner or the view expressed by the State on issues of this 
nature. It is really for experts in the field to take a call, for example, on 
what percentage of crop loss deserves to be addressed, whether the 
crop loss should be 33% and above or 50% and above. The quantum of 
monetary relief to be given to a farmer is again a matter of policy. 
D 
20. Similarly, issues regarding establishing fodder banks or 
restructuring bank loans, the extent to which restructuring should be 
carried out are all issues that are required to be decided by experts. 
Even then, within the community of experts, there are likely to be 
differences of opinion. While
one set of experts might fix crop loss for 
E 
relief at 50% another set of experts might consider the crop loss for 
relief above or below 50%. This being the position, there cannot be any 
judicially manageable standards for determining issues of policy and it 
would be hazardous if not dangerous for us to venture into such areas 
when we lack the expertise to do so. 
21. This Court has, on several occasions, dealt with issues of 
policy whether having an economic and fiscal flavour or even mundane 
matters of policy including, for example, transfer of government servants 
from one place to another. This Court has not interfered in such matters 
unless the policy is demonstrably perverse. 
22. Fairly recently, in Essar Steels Ltd. v. U11io11 of /11dia
1 this 
Court summed up the position in law as follows: 
"Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on 
the following grounds: 
1 2016 (4) SCALE 267 = MANU/SC/0431/2016 
F 
G 
H
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
(a) ifit is unconstitutional; 
(b) if it is de 'hors the provisions of the Act and the 
Regulations; 
( c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; 
B 
( d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a 
larger policy." 
23. There are several decisions to the same effect including, for 
example, another recent decision of this Court Centre/or Public Interest 
Litigation v. Union of India~ and some earlier decisions such as M.P. 
C Oil Extraction v. State of Madllya Pradesll 3, Villianur Iyarkkai 
Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India~ and of course the Constitution 
Bench decision in Peerless General Finance ant/Investment Co. 
Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India;. For the present purposes, the 
summation provided in Essar Steels is quite clear: 
D 
"Executive policies are usually enacted after much 
deliberation by the Government. Therefore, it would not be 
appropriate for this Court to question the wisdom of the 
same, unless it is demonstrated by the aggrieved persons 
that the said policy has been enacted in an arbitrary, 
unreasonable or mala fide manner, or that it offends the 
E 
provisions of the Constitution oflndia." 
24. Therefore, the issues raised by the petitioner should actually 
be looked at from the point of view of implementation of a policy and 
monitoring its implementation. In our opinion, in the process of 
implementation and monitoring, what is important is for the Union of 
F India
and the State Governments to set up watch-dog committees or 
ombudsmen to see that the polices framed are faithfully implemented. 
There is little utility in knee-jerk reactions and stumbling along from one 
situation to another. 
25. Ad hoc measures really do not serve any purpose and eventually 
G the consequence of an ad hoc reaction tends to travel to this Court for a 
response. The one possible solution appears to be for the Union oflndia 
'2016 (3) SCALE 712 = MANU/SC/0372/2016 
3 (I997J1 sec 592 
• c2009J 1 sec 561 
H 
' (1992) 2 sec 343
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (IV) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
339 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
and the States to set up their respective watch-dog committees that will 
A 
specialize in certain disciplines for the purposes of implementation and 
monitoring the schemes and policies framed by the Union of India and 
the State Governments. A policy might be acceptable and worthy, but 
often it is the effective implementation and monitoring that is lacking. 
26. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to issue only one 
B 
direction in respect of the three issues raised by the petitioner which is 
to direct the concerned authorities in the Union of India, the State 
Governments and the Reserve Bank of India and other banks to 
religiously implement their policies since they are ultimately intended for 
the benefit of the people of our country and not for the benefit of any 
C 
stranger. 
Court Commissioners 
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists on the appointment 
of Court Commissioners to oversee the implementation of the various 
directions issued by us. Reference is made by learned counsel to what o 
is commonly called the Right to Food Campaign which resulted in the 
appointment of Commissioners by this Court to report on the functioning 
and improvement of the public distribution system. Some useful and 
valuable suggestions were certainly given by the Court Commissioners 
and which were implemented under the directions of this Court. Learned 
counsel for the petitioner submits that
it is necessary for us to direct the 
appointment of Court Commissioners so that the provisions of the various 
statutes under consideration are faithfully implemented and the various 
schemes framed by the Government oflndia and the State Governments 
are implemented in their true spirit. 
E 
28. Learned Additional Solicitor General vehemently opposes this 
F 
plea on the ground that the appointment would serve no useful purpose. 
He submits that it is not as ifthe officers in the Government oflndia are 
not doing their work. While there may be some laxity or slackness on 
occasion but that cannot be generalized to necessitate some external 
authorities to monitor the functions of the officers of the State. He 
G 
submits that there are internal checks within the administration which 
ensure that governance is carried out for the welfare of the people and 
in a transparent and accountable manner. 
29. We have given our consideration to the submissions made by 
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor H
340 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
General and find that the system of in-house checks has already been 
statutorily recognized for all the issues that we have dealt with in this 
case. For example, the Disaster Management Act, 2005 constitutes 
authorities and bodies like the National Disaster Management Authority, 
the National Executive Committee etc. to ensure that the Act is faithfully 
implemented and measures taken are reviewed and monitored from time 
to time. Similarly, the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Mahatma 
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 also mandate 
the constitution and establishment of bodies and authorities under the 
statute to review and monitor the implementation of the statute and the 
schemes or programs thereunder. 
30. It is another matter altogether that some provisions of these 
statues have been converted into a dead letter and various authorities 
under these statutes have not yet been constituted compelling us to 
comment on the failure of the Executive branch of the Government of 
India and the State Governments to faithfully implement the law enacted 
by Parliament. We have also given directions in this regard and we 
certainly expect a favourable response to the directions issued and their 
compliance. For the present, therefore, we do not see the need for the 
appointment of any Court Commissioner. 
Continuing mandamus 
31. We are firmly of the view that the principle of
continuing 
mandamus is now an integral part of our constitutional jurisprudence. 
There are any number of public interest petitions in which this Court has 
continued to monitor the implementation of its orders and on occasion 
monitor investigations into alleged offences where there has been some 
apparent stonewalling by the Government of India. A few years ago, 
one of us had occasion to advert to the requirement of a continuing 
mandamus as a part of our jurisprudence.6 It is not necessary to repeat 
the views expressed therein. 
32. Under these circumstances, we agree with learned counsel 
for the petitioner that this petition ought not be disposed of but should be 
kept pending and the possibility of a continuing mandamus being issued 
ought to be kept open to ensure that the directions that have been given 
are complied with by the Government of India as well as the State 
Governments. 
6 Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union oflndia. (2014) 2 SCC 532

SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (IV) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
341 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
33. We adjourn this case to I" August, 2016 at 2.00 p.m. and 
A 
direct the Union of India to file a status report on or before 25'" July, 
2016 stating the action taken by the Government of India on the various 
directions that we have given in this case on different dates. 
Nidhi Jain 
Matter adjourned. 
B