DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR

Session: 2023-24

BALLB (Hons.)

MP LAND LAWS

PROJECT TITLE
‘BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION V. UNION OF INDIA
________________________________________

SUBMITTED TO

Mr. SN Khare.
Adjunct Professor
Mr.Deepak Gautam
Teaching Associate, DNLU Jabalpur
____________________________________________________

SUBMITTED BY

AARYAVART CHOURASIA
BAL/038/19

1
 Table of Contents

❖ Title Page..........................................................................................1
❖ Acknowledgement............................................................................3
❖ Introduction.....................................................................................4
❖ Background of the Case..................................................................5
❖ Case Analysis...................................................................................7

▪ Facts in Issue...................................................7
▪ Arguments of the Petitioner............................7
▪ Arguments of the Respondent........................8
▪ Decision of the Court......................................8
▪ Analysis.........................................................11
❖ Conclusion.....................................................................................14
❖ Bibliography..................................................................................15

Acknowledgement

First of all, I am grateful to The Almighty God for providing me with everything that I
required in completing this Project.

I wish to express my sincere Thanks to Prof. Shailesh Hadli, Vice Chancellor of the
university, for providing me with all the necessary facilities.

I am highly indebted to the Professor in charge, Mr. SN Khare Sir and Deepak Gautam Sir
for his guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information
regarding the project and also for his support in completing the project.

Aaryavart Chourasia

2
 Introduction

The judgment in ‘BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India1’ was given by the Hon’ble
three judge bench of the Supreme Court of India. The bench comprised of Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Kirpal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama
Reddi. This case of ‘BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India2’ is a significant judgement
in the purview of the Indian legal history.

In the concerned case, the decision of the Government to the strategic sale was challenged by
the BALCO employee union by filing Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi. This petition
was disposed of by the High Court vide its order in 1999. In March, 2000, the Union Cabinet
approved the Ministry of Mines’ proposal to reduce the share capital of BALCO. This
resulted in cash flow to the Union Government in the Financial Year 1999-2000. With the
filing of the writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi and in the High Court of Chhattisgarh,
an application for transfer of the petitions was filed by the Union of India in the Court. After
the notices were issued, the company received various notices from the authorities in
Chhattisgarh for alleged breach of various provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the
Mining Concession Rules. Some of the notices were not only addressed to the company but
also to individuals alleging violation of the provisions of the code and the rules as also
encroachment having taken place on Government land by BALCO. This led to the filing of
the Writ Petition by BALCO in the Court, inter alia, challenging the validity of the said
notices. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workers of the company went on strike
in March, 2001. Some interim orders were passed in the transfer petition and subsequently in
May, 2001, the strike was called off. By Order dated 9th April, 2001, the writ petitions which
were pending, in the High Court of Delhi and Chhattisgarh, were transferred to Supreme
Court being Transfer Case No. 8 of 2001 which pertains to the writ petition filed by BALCO
Employees’ Union; transfer Case No. 9 of 2001 pertains to the writ petition filed by Dr. B.L.
Wadhera in the Delhi High Court and Transfer Case No. 10 of 2001 is the writ petition filed
by Mr. Samund Singh Kanwar in the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

Simply expressed, the validity of the disinvestment and transfer of 51% shares of M/s Bharat
Aluminum Company Limited (BALCO) by the Central Government was challenged. The
judgement concluded that the protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which the

1
BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.
2
BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.

3
workers had, on account of BALCO being recognised as State, does not give the workers the
right or makes it the government’s responsibility to provide the workers with notice of
hearing before disinvesting. The judgment went on to say that the principles of natural justice
do not come into play while taking a policy decision in economic matters. The Supreme
Court held, “The policy of disinvestment cannot be faulted if as a result thereof, the
employees lose their rights or protection under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In other
words, the existence of rights of protection under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
cannot possibly have the effect of vetoing the Government’s right to disinvest. Nor can the
employees claim a right of continuous consultation at different stages of the disinvestment
process.”3 The Court stated that the executive is the best judge in areas of economic policy
and that it would only investigate an economic policy if the Union Government violated a
constitutional or statutory requirement.

Background of the Case

Under the Companies Act, 1956, M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, also known as
BALCO, was established in 1965 as a government of India undertaking. It was owned and
controlled by the Indian government prior to its disinvestment, and it was engaged in
aluminium manufacturing with plants in Chhattisgarh and West Bengal. A Public Sector
Disinvestment Commission was constituted pursuant to the industrial policy of disinvestment
by a resolution dated August 23, 1996 to act as an advisory body and assist the government in
making decisions regarding the disinvestment of companies and the mode of disinvestment.4
Under the supervision of the Disinvestment Commission, the Public Sector Undertakings
(PSUs) were to implement the government's decision.

The Disinvestment Commission in its 2nd report recommended the government to disinvest its
holding in BALCO by offering a share of 40% to a strategic partner and making an
agreement that within the next 2 years the government will make a public offer to the
domestic markets for further sale of its shares to institutions, small investors and employees,
thereby bringing down its holding to 26%, leading to privatization of the company.5 But soon
realizing that it would be difficult to get multilateral financial institutions to take up the

3
BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.
4
Ritika Sarda, Case Analysis of BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, PRO BONO
INDIA.
5
Ritika Sarda, Case Analysis of BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, PRO BONO
INDIA

4
shares of BALCO, the Chairman of the Disinvestment Commission recommended the
government to consider offering 51% of its shares in BALCO which will in turn transfer the
management to the strategic partners, hence, encouraging more bidders to participate.6

Jardine Fleming Securities India Ltd.'s bid was accepted, and the Cabinet Committee of
Disinvestment approved a strategic sale of 51% of BALCO's shares.7 The BALCO
Employees Union challenged the government's decision by filing a writ petition in the Delhi
High Court, which was later, disposed.8 Later, on behalf of the government, the Global
Advisor issued an advertisement calling for 'Expressions of Interest,' to which eight parties
responded.9 This was done on the basis of the company's overall credibility, as well as its
financial and technological capability. After the completion of the filtration process and due
consideration of Shareholders Agreement and the Share Purchase Agreement, quotations,
financial bids and the report of the Evaluation Committee, the bid of Sterlite Industries was
accepted.10 This announcement led to the initiation of legal proceedings challenging the said
decision. On 23rd February, 2001, Dr. B.L. Wadhera filed civil writ petition followed by the
writ petition by the employees of BALCO in the Delhi High Court and a writ petition by
another employee of BALCO, namely, Mr. Samund Singh Kanwar filed in the High Court of
Chhattisgarh.11

Meanwhile, on February 27, 2001, the Rajya Sabha passed a motion regarding BALCO's
disinvestment, which was later discussed in the Lok Sabha on March 1, 2001.12 The motion
"the House disapproves the proposed BALCO disinvestment" was defeated in the Lok
Sabha.13 Thereafter on 2nd March, 2001, Shareholders Agreement and Share Purchase
Agreement was entered into between the Government of India and Sterlite Industries
Limited.14 Pursuant to the execution of sale, 51% of the equity was transferred to Sterlite
Industries Limited.15 These events led to the filing of the petitions before the Delhi and

6
Ritika Sarda, Case Analysis of BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, PRO BONO
INDIA
7
Ritika Sarda, Case Analysis of BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, PRO BONO
INDIA
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Ritika Sarda, Case Analysis of BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, PRO BONO
INDIA
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Ritika Sarda, Case Analysis of BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, PRO BONO
INDIA

5
Chhattisgarh High Courts and which were finally transferred to the Supreme Court on
receiving an application from the Union of India.

Case Analysis

In pursuant of the above discussion regarding the introduction and the background of the
case, the concerned case of ‘BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India’,16, can be
analysed as follows:

FACTS IN ISSUE:

▪ The validity of the decision of the Union of India to disinvest and transfer 51% shares
of M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) is the primary issue.
▪ The courts do not have the power to check the merits or rightness of the economic
policies made by the executive as this power lies with the legislature.
▪ The disinvestment of BALCO by the government will leave the workers remedy less
as the company will no longer fall within the ambit of ‘State’ under Article 12 and
they will not be able to seek remedy under Article 14 and 16 of the Indian
constitution.
▪ The case does not fall under the criteria required to file a PIL.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

• Firstly, because the Government of India owned and managed BALCO's entire paid-
up capital and the administrative authority was vested in the Ministry of Mines prior
to disinvestment, BALCO was a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution. Hence, the workers had lost their remedy under Article 14 and 16.
Because this would have such a drastic impact on them, they had the right to be heard
before the disinvestment process started.
• Secondly, according to the agreement, after the sale of 51% of the shares, the
remaining 49 % of the shares would have been sold to Sterlite Industries, and the
workers would have lost the 5% of the shares that would have been disinvested in the
employees.
• Thirdly, the Disinvestment Commission had recommended that some percentage of
equity share be offered to the workers to solicit their participation but the government

16
BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.

6
 did not provide any material or record proving that they had addressed this situation
which would have affected the rights and benefits of the workers indicating that the
relevant facts were not taken into consideration while taking the decision.
• Another contention was that the land on which BALCO was constructed is a tribal
land, hence, the land could have been used by public sector undertaking but once the
majority shares were transferred then the land could not be transferred to a non-tribal
or even under PSU. In simple terms, the said land could have been acquired and used
by public sector undertaking but the tribal land could not be transferred to a non-tribal
and that the prohibition contained against the transfer of tribal land will come into
play.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

• Firstly, the amount of return of governmental enterprises had been low. The rate of
return on central enterprises was minus four percentage while the rate at which
government borrowed money was ten to eleven percentage, therefore, there was an
urgent need of a disinvestments strategy.
• Secondly, the economic policies of the government cannot be challenged under
judicial review and that the courts cannot consider it and go into the question of
merits, correctness or the rationality of any government economic policies. The court
is not the forum for resolving the conflicting clauses regarding the advisability of a
policy.
• Thirdly, the government while entering into the agreement had made certain
provisions for the benefit of the workers, therefore, no question arose with respect to
the rights of the workers after the shares were transferred.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

For the reasons, as discussed below, the court held that the disinvestments by the Government
in BALCO, was not invalid. Transferred Case (Civil) Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 2001 were
dismissed:

Section 165 of the M.P. Revenue Code, 1959, deals with transfer of rights of Bhumiswami.
Sub-section (6) of Section 165, before and after its amendment, does not contain any
provision prohibiting the giving of tribal land by way of lease to non-tribal after getting
permission of Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector who is required to give his

7
reasons for granting the permission. After amendment on 29th November, 1976 by virtue of
provision of Sub-section (6), lease of land is taken out of the purview of Sub-section 6(1).

In the concerned case, either the land was acquired and then given on lease by the State
Government to BALCO or permission was given by the District Collector for transfer of
private land in favour of BALCO. This was clearly permissible under Section 165(6) as it
stood at the time, and it is far too late in the day, 25 years after the last permission was
granted, to hold that because of the disinvestments, there was a transfer of land to the non-
tribe in 2001, even though the land remains with BALCO, to whom it was originally
transferred. The lease of land to BALCO was done in compliance with Section 165(6) of
the Revenue Code. Furthermore, a change in management or management does not imply
that land has been transferred from one company to another. If the original grant of land lease
and permission to transfer in favour of BALCO between 1968 and 1972 was valid, it cannot
now be claimed that another transfer of land has happened, with the Government's stake
reduced to 49%. The transfer of land to BALCO, even if it was a non-public sector
undertaking, was not in violation of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.

Each elected government in a democracy has the right to pursue its own policy. A shift in
focus or a change in economic policies is often the outcome of a change in government. Any
such change may have an adverse influence on some established interests. A decision
bringing about change cannot be overturned by the Court unless there is an illegality
committed in the execution of the policy, or it is contrary to law or mala fide. Economic
policies' wisdom and advisability are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can
be proven that the policy is in contravention of any statute or the Constitution. To put it
another way, it is not for the courts to weigh the relative merits of various economic policies
and determine if a wiser or better one can be devised.

Apart from the fact that the policy of disinvestments cannot be questioned, the facts in the
concerned case show that the disinvestments were carried out in a fair, just, and equitable
manner. The claims of a lack of transparency, a hurried judgement, or an arbitrary exercise of
power are without merit. It is regrettable that such allegations against the Union of India have
been made on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh. The court strongly condemned such
unsubstantiated claims made by a State officer. The highest bidder's offer has been accepted.
This was more than the reserve price which was arrived at by a method which is well
recognised and, therefore, we have not examined the details in the matter of arriving at the

8
valuation figure. Furthermore, valuation is a factual issue, and the Court will not intervene
unless the methodology used is arbitrary.

The verdict in Samantha's case (above) does not apply here since the legal provisions are
different. The land was legitimately given to BALCO a number of years ago, and it is not
open to the State of Chhattisgarh to question its management today; the land remains with
BALCO, to whom it was validly given on lease.

If the public is injured as a result of the government's violation of constitutional or statutory

obligations, judicial intervention through a PIL is available. That's not the case herein, and
the Court is not the right forum for discussing economic policy or change. Every matter of
public interest or curiosity is ineligible to be the subject of a PIL. The administration of the
country is not something that courts are authorized to do, and it is not something that they
should do. Only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, or if the
state fails to comply with its constitutional or statutory obligations, can the courts intervene.
None of these possibilities exist in this situation.

In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect
in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the
judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the Court is satisfied
that there is illegality in the decision itself. Lastly, no ex-parte relief in the form of an
injunction or a stay should be granted, especially in the case of public projects and schemes
or economic policies and schemes. After hearing all of the parties, the Court can only grant
an injunction if it is satisfied for good and valid reasons that there will be irreparable and
irreversible damage. Even so, the Petitioner shall be bound by reasonable provisions, such as
giving an indemnity or a sufficient undertaking to compensate for any loss or harm incurred
if the PIL is dismissed. It is in public interest that there should be early disposal of cases.
Public Interest Litigation should, therefore, be disposed of at the earliest as any delay will be
contrary to public interest and thus become counter-productive.

➢ In simple terms, the decision of the Court can be summarised as following:

The court held that the procedure adopted for the sale was valid. The ruling on procedure was
based on the findings that:

1. Laborers had no fundamental right or any legal right to be heard by the management
even though the decision concerned the future of the company.

9
 2. The protective clauses in the shareholder’s agreement were sufficient proof that the
rights and the benefits of the laborers had been adequately addressed.

3. The sale was made on the guidance and advice of the Disinvestment Commission
which comprises of experts in the field and which was satisfactory to admit the
propriety of the procedure and the valuation of the company which was adopted by
the executive

4. The sale did not violate any land laws, because the enterprise functioned from
premises that had been validly leased.

ANALYSIS:

The concerned case can be analysed as follows:

➢ Judicial review of the economic policy

In the case of RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER V. UNION OF INDIA,17 the court stated that it is not
the court's duty to examine the merits of an economic policy developed by the executive or
legislature; rather, the court's competence is limited to determining whether the policy is
arbitrary or in violation of the constitution or any other provision of law.

The Supreme Court in FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION V. UNION OF INDIA18, went
on to state that the power of court intervention and review in the administration's economic
policies would be in contravention of the country's Montesquieu system of separation of
powers. The courts do not have the power to seize or relinquish powers vested in the
government, and judicial review is a restricted power that must be exercised with prudence.
Thus, the court's role is to determine whether the government acted fairly, without bias or
arbitrariness, and whether the policy is free of unreasonableness and has followed the rules of
procedure established by the rules of public administration, rather than to determine whether
the administration has failed in its wisdom.

The court in the case of PREMIUM GRANITES AND ANR V. STATE OF T.N.19 took into
consideration the challenges faced by the government as the government has expanded its
existence in the field of trade, economic enterprises etc. which has in turn increased concerns

17
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248
18
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 568
19
Premium Granites and Anr v. State of T.N. and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 691

10
regarding reducing the cost, increasing the efficiency, better management skills, preclusion of
time and cost overruns in projects etc. Thus the government has to choose a suitable policy
that will help it survive the competition. Thus, as stated in case of BHAVESH D. PARISH AND
ORS. V. UNION AND INDIA20, the courts should take recourse under judicial review only if an
economic policies is in violation of the constitution or legal limits or amounts to abuse of
power.

On careful analysis of the judgment in the concerned case, it can be inferred that, despite the
fact that the case was filed to challenge the government's disinvestment policy, the Supreme
Court only considered the workers' rights and job security after the government had
disinvested from BALCO. The court refused to address the issue of the policy's correctness
and refused to review the policy. This may be a valid decision on the point, as the only issue
in the case was whether the workers would lose their rights under Articles 14 and
16, following the disinvestment, which they had earlier when BALCO was a 'State' under
Article 12.Thus, if the court would have gone into the merits of the case then it would have
made an error because this power lies with the legislature as was stated in STATE OF PUNJAB
AND ORS. V. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA.21

But it must also be pointed out that the significance of the judgment exceeded the specifics of
the current case and set up principles that will have a far reaching influence that will affect
the jurisprudence on economic affair. The most prominent example is the case of CPIL V.
UNION OF INDIA22 where the court while dealing with question of disinvestment allowed the
disinvestment to take places stating that since in the BALCO case, the court had approved the
same therefore there arose no question of debate on that point. But what it failed to take into
consideration was that the judgment of BALCO case never went into the merits of the
disinvestments policy as the issue pertained to a different point.

Judicial scrutiny of policies, especially those related to disinvestment, does not fall under the
purview of the courts, nor does the scope of judicial review include the question of whether
the policy was wise or correct. The courts cannot overturn a policy simply because the
petitioner believes that another policy would be better, more reasonable, and beneficial. Only
the legislature has the authority to inspect the executive's policies, and since it was enacted in
parliament, there is no reason to challenge it. It must also be understood that experts are

20
Bhavesh D. Parish and Ors. v. Union and India and Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 471
21
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Ors (1998) 4 SCC 117
22
CPIL v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 532

11
responsible for framing economic policies, and sometimes even experts' opinions differ. As a
result, courts should refrain from discussing the advantages and disadvantages of a policy, or
testing its utility, etc., as this is within the executive's domain.

The case will also serve as a deterrent to further cases that would question the Union
government's credibility, as the court found in the concerned case that the policy was fair,
just, and had followed the equitable procedure in carrying out this disinvestment, and that the
allegations of lack of transparency or exercise of arbitrary power were found to be without
basis. As a result, it will function as a deterrence, preventing further challenges by state
governments to the Union government's powers and sanctions, particularly when it comes to
privatisation.

➢ Admissibility of a PIL

In S.P. GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER23, the court stated a PIL must be filed only
for the purpose of enforcing public rights and duties, remedying public injury, protecting
social and collective rights and interests or vindicating public interest. Later in the case of
SACHIDANAND PANDEY AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS24, the court
constrained the procedure of filing a PIL by stating that it is only in cases of gross violation
of fundamental rights or human rights or complaints that shake the judicial minds when a PIL
should be filed.

Only a bona fide person having sufficient interest in the proceeding or any other person
representing the poor and needy who cannot seek justice on their own will have a locus standi
if there is any form of violation of their fundamental rights, but any person having personal
gain, private profit, political motive should not be allowed to file a PIL as was stated in the
case of JANTA DAL V. H.S. CHOWDHARY AND OTHERS.25

The current case would not fall under the ambit of PIL as it challenged the economic policy
framed by the executive, making the decision to disinvest from BALCO a purely
administrative one. It is a settled principle that to file a PIL there must be violation of any
fundamental rights or human rights or it is for the benefit of the poor who are unable to seek
justice on their own. But a decision challenging the economic or financial decisions of the
government in exercise of their administrative power cannot be challenged by way of a PIL.

23
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Another [1982]2 SCR 365
24
Sachidanand Pandey and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1109
25
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others,AIR 1993 SC 892

12
Such a PIL by a stranger on behalf of the people should not be entertained unless the Court is
satisfied that there has been violation of fundamental rights and the persons adversely
affected are unable to approach the Court as was stated in RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL LTD. V.
I.V.R. CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND OTHERS.26

The court correctly observed that the main purpose of filing a PIL is to serve the public
interest in cases where fundamental rights of people from socially and economically
disadvantaged backgrounds who lack the means to represent themselves have been violated.
However, in this case, no workers' fundamental rights were violated, and the PIL was filed to
debate the potential repercussions of the disinvestment programme, as well as whether
workers will have recourse under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The PIL
should not have been allowed to be filed because none of the fundamental rights were
violated. Also taking into consideration the costs incurred by the plants or industry as a
consequence of judicial intervention the court stated that no ex parte relief in form of stay or
injunction will be granted particularly regarding cases dealing with public schemes and
policies or economic schemes until it is proved that if the courts refused to impose an
injunction or stay the petitioner would suffer from a permanent and irreparable damage which
derived is existence from the case of NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS.27

Conclusion

The executive function instils within it, the right to make and execute the policies while it is
the duty of the legislature to make sure that the policy suggested and implemented by the
executive has merit and is best suited for the welfare of the country. The court has the
responsibility to ensure that the policy in place complies with existing laws and does not
infringe on people's fundamental rights. As a result, the government and the courts have the
power to decide whether or not a policy should be adopted. This is why, in the concerned
case, the court refused to consider the merits of the disinvestment programme. Normally, the
merits of a public policy, such as whether it is wise or not, and whether it is better than other
policies or not, cannot be challenged in court, but because the case was filed claiming that if
the policy is implemented, workers' rights under articles 14 and 16 would be violated, it was
allowed to be filed.

26
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others, AIR1999SC393
27
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 10 SSC 664

13
The purpose of the PIL was also to ensure that people's interests were safeguarded, and that if
the fundamental rights of the impoverished, socially and economically disadvantaged people
were violated, they would have a remedy and could seek justice by filing a PIL. It was not
meant to be a weapon to challenge any policy or decision of the executive or the legislature
or to challenge the financial or economic decisions which were taken by the government in
exercise of their administrative power. Despite the fact that several judgements have
attempted to restrict the scope of PIL, some people who claim to be representing the poor
utilise it to benefit themselves, necessitating stern action against anyone who does so.

Disinvestment is a policy decision involving numerous economic variables. The courts have
consistently refrained from interfering with economic decisions because it has been
recognised that economic feasibility lacks adjudicative character, and unless the economic
decision, based on economic feasibility, is demonstrated to be in gross violation of
constitutional or legal limits on power or so abhorrent to reason, the courts will decline to
intervene in matters involving economic issues.

Bibliography

• Jain, Tarun, A Critical Analysis of the Balco Case. (January, 2008) Retrieved from
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1087593 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1087593
• Kumar, Shubham, Is India truly a socialist state? (June, 2018) Retrieved from
https://blog.ipleaders.in/socialist-constitution-india/
• More, Hemant, Exceptions to Principles of Natural Justice, (October, 2019) Retrieved
from https://thefactfactor.com/tag/balco-employees-union-vs-uoi/
• Sarda, Ritika, Case Analysis of BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC
333, PRO BONO INDIA, (April, 2020).

14