Judgment :- DHARMARAO ELIPE, J. 1. These writ petitions question the decision of the State Government to distribute a free Colour Television set (in short ‘CTV‘) to each and every household in the state of Tamil Nadu which did not possess the same on the ground that the expenditure to be incurred by the state Government for the purchase of the CTVs for free distribution is unauthorised, impermissible and ultra vires the Constitutional provisions. 2. The eighth respondent, one of the major political parties in the State of Tamil Nadu, in its election manifesto for the Assembly Elections, 2006 had announced inter alia that a free CTV set would be distributed to each and every household in the State of Tamil Nadu which did not possess the same, if it were, voted to power. The President of the said political party while releasing the partys manifesto declared that distribution of free CTVs was for the purpose of providing recreation and general knowledge to the household women more particularly those living in the rural areas. The political allies of the eighth respondent also supported the distribution of free CTVs to each and every household in the State of Tamil Nadu. 3. The eight respondent political party and its political allies emerged victorious in the state Assembly Elections held in the month of May, 2006. In pursuit of fulfilling the promises made by the eight respondent in its election manifesto, steps were initiated for distribution of free. CTVs to each and every household in the State of Tamil Nadu. A policy decision was taken by the Government to provide one 14? CTV to all eligible families in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu in the first session of the 13th Assembly of the State had also referred to the said Scheme and declared that the Scheme would be introduced and implemented in a phased manner. A Government order was issued, vide G.O. Ms. No. 3 Information Technology (e-Gov.II) Department dated 20.6.2006, declaring that through the Revenue Department of the State, the District Collectors would disburse 14” CTVs to all eligible families, free of cost. This Government Order was followed by a series of Government orders on 22.6.2006, 30.6.2006, 30.6.2006 and 3.10.2006 on the above Scheme. It was further decided, by the Government to implement the scheme in a phased manner. A provision of Rs. This Government Order was followed by a series of Government orders on 22.6.2006, 30.6.2006, 30.6.2006 and 3.10.2006 on the above Scheme. It was further decided, by the Government to implement the scheme in a phased manner. A provision of Rs. 750 crore was made in the budget for implementing the said scheme. 4. A committee was constituted, headed by the Chief Minister and eight other legislative members of various political parties, in order to ensure transparency in the matter of implementation, of the Scheme. In the meeting held, on 27.6.2006, the Committee decided that in the first phase, around 30,000 CTV may be procured through national competitive bids and for the successive phases through international open competitive bids. For implementing the first phase of the Scheme, a sum of Rs. 9 crores was set apart for procurement of 30,000 CTVs. The first phase of distribution of CTVs was scheduled on 15.9.2006 and 17.9.2006, commemorating the birth anniversaries of Arignar Anna and Thanthai Periyar. It was further decided to implement the first phase of the Scheme by distributing the free CTVs to the families living in ‘Samathuvapurams‘ (areas where people belonging to Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and other communities live together). Scheduled Tribes in the Nilgiris District, families residing in slum Clearance Board tenements and families staying in State Rehabilitation homes through out the State. 5. For implementing the first phase of the Scheme, as provided for in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 20.6.2006, the procurement of around 30,000 CTVs was entrusted to Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (ELCOT), a State-owned corporation. ELCOT invited tenders through national bidding for the supply of 30,000 CTVs and the same were procured. Apart from this, ELCOT invited international bids for the supply of around 25 lakh CTVs and the tenders were opened and finalised on 20.11.2006. 6. Thefirst phase of the implementation of the Scheme was implemented on 15/17.9.2006 by distributing around 30,000 CTVs to the identified families in all the districts of the State of Tamil Nadu. While the efforts are being taken for implementing the successive phases of the scheme, the present, writ petitions were filed questioning the propriety of the State Government in implementing the Scheme, on various grounds. 7. While the efforts are being taken for implementing the successive phases of the scheme, the present, writ petitions were filed questioning the propriety of the State Government in implementing the Scheme, on various grounds. 7. The main stay of the challenge to the Scheme is that the introduction and implementation of the scheme is ultra vires the fiscal policy envisaged under the Constitution of India and therefore illegal. According to the petitioners, since the implementation of the Scheme involves the huge expenditure of around 1500 crores, it would have adverse impact on the State Exchequer; that the huge expenditure to be incurred out of State Exchequer, which is nothing but public money, for implementation of the Scheme, is against the. Constitutional fiscal policies regarding State expenditure; that the Expenditure defrayable by the State out of its revenues shall be only for public purposes under Article 282 of the Constitution of India and the present Scheme of distribution of free CTVs aims at meeting the recreation of public, which does not fulfill the public purpose; that the Constitution of India provides for an inbuilt mechanism for maintaining the financial probity and also provides for extensive audit of State expenditure to conform public expenditure to what is legally permissible and what subserves public purpose; that the decision of the State Government in implementing the Scheme out of the funds from the State Exchequer is against the economic and social growth of the. State; that the state Government has a duty to observe fiscal discipline and ultimately it is the public money which is going to be defrayed for the implementation of the Scheme and such public money should be deployed for the overall growth of the State; that the state Exchequer, which is predominantly built on the tax paid by the common man, should not be deployed for such wasteful expenditure which has no bearing on the economic and social growth of the state. A welfare State, in its real term, is expected to plan its expenditure towards economic and social growth and should not encourage the distribution of unproductive freebies and more particularly during election times. 8. It was also argued that the declaration of the distribution of free CTVs in the election manifesto of the eight respondent was a corrupt practice to woo the gullible electorates, with an eye on the vote bank. 8. It was also argued that the declaration of the distribution of free CTVs in the election manifesto of the eight respondent was a corrupt practice to woo the gullible electorates, with an eye on the vote bank. Such declaration of freebies, which serves no public, purpose, is against the electoral norms and ethics. The announcement of such scheme during the election is nothing but bribing the voters to vote for the eight respondent, which is an offence under the Representation of the People Act. 9. It was further argued that the allocation of 750 crores for the purpose of distribution of free CTVs in the budget report 2006-07 does not come under the purview of any law or any of the provisions of the Constitution. Article 266(3) of the Constitution stipulates that no moneys out of Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State shall be appropriated except in accordance with law for the purpose and in the manner provided in the constitution. The implementation of the scheme would amount to a wasteful expenditure, of public fund. 10. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the eighth respondent it is averred that there is no element of public interest involved in the writ petitions and the petitions have beer filed espousing the cause of the rival political party. The distribution of free CTVs is one of the welfare, schemes implemented in the attainment of enhancing the general knowledge of household women by bringing them into the main stream of the society through telecommunication. By providing free CTVs to the needy persons, it is intended to reach every citizen in the State through electronic media and also make them aware about the happenings globally. The attempt of the petitioners to scuttle the implementation of the scheme through these publicity orientated litigation directly affects the right to information and right to life of the citizens for whom such CTVs are distributed. In the election manifesto, it was intended to achieve equality, enlightenment of women and providing information and general knowledge to the downtrodden people. The inability to afford television sets in the house should not deprive such of those persons from being informative and to know about the worldly of affairs from their home. It is with this view in end, the CTVs were intended to be distributed freely. The inability to afford television sets in the house should not deprive such of those persons from being informative and to know about the worldly of affairs from their home. It is with this view in end, the CTVs were intended to be distributed freely. As such, the distribution of free CTVs announced in the election manifesto is just and legal. 11. It is further averred that distribution of free CTVs was part of election manifesto issued by the eight respondent prior to the election assembly and therefore as and when this respondents comes to power and forms the Government it is duty bound to fulfill the electoral promises made in the election manifesto. Therefore, the distribution of free CTVs is in pursuance of implementation of electoral manifesto and no motives could be attributed in the matter of implementation of the scheme. The object of distributing the free CTVs is to equip the household women with the happenings of the world and ensure that they are made aware of the happenings in their surroundings and about the world at large. The economic background should hot prevent any citizen from having access to the electronic media like Television, through which the world is brought to the doorstep of common man. It is with this lofty principle, of equipping the common, particularly the household women about the world affairs and impart them general knowledge, the free CTVs scheme was introduced. The election manifesto having been approved by the electorate in the General Elections held in May, 2006, the Government headed by the eighth respondent is mandated by the people to implement the schemes which were announced in the election manifesto and therefore, the functions relating to the schemes announced in the election manifesto have now become the sovereign function of the Government headed by the eighth respondent. 12. The 6th respondent has filed a counter denying the allegations of the writ petition and further submitting that the scheme of distribution of colour television sets was aimed to provide colour television to poor families and not for the persons voted to a particular party and this is a social welfare measure aimed at establishing a socialistic pattern where the Directive Principles of state Policy as contained in Articles 39, 42 and 47 find its implementation. 13. 13. The 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that CAG of India also conducts Performance Audit of the schemes to ascertain how effectively, efficiently and economically the objectives of the programme/Scheme are achieved and in this audit, an attempt is made to assess and appraise to what extent social and economic objectives sought to be achieved have been achieved and at what cost and to examine how far the executive is discharging its financial responsibilities and ascertain whether the schemes are executed and operations conducted economically and this Department does not generally question the objectives of the policies of the Government and therefore. At is not a necessary party to the writ proceedings and prayed to dismiss the writ petition as against this respondent. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and the petitioner in W.P. No. 1071 of 2007, who appeared as party-in-person and perused the records. 15. In consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the party in person, the following points would arise for consideration in these writ petitions: 1. Whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Election Commission of India are not necessary parties to these proceedings 2. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file these writ petitions as proboao publico 3. Whether the promises made by the political parties in their election manifestos would amount to ‘corrupt practices‘ as per Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 4. Whether the scheme of distribution of free colour T.Vs. announced by the Government with budgetary allocations, amounts to ‘wastage of public money, and what is the scope of judicial review in matters of economic policies of the Government 5. What relief the parties are entitled toe 16. During the hearing of these writ petitions, the petitioner in W.P. No. 1071 of 2007 has addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, stating that the petitioner in W.P. No. 9013 of 2006 viz. Mr. S. Subramaniam Balaji has offered an incorrect, address, as if he is residing at No. 36, State Bank Colony, 1st street, Mela Agraharam,Thenkasi, but, though actually, he resides at 33/38, 3 Main Road, Raja Annamaalaipuram,Chennai-600 028, with the sole purpose of filing the case in this Court. Mr. S. Subramaniam Balaji has offered an incorrect, address, as if he is residing at No. 36, State Bank Colony, 1st street, Mela Agraharam,Thenkasi, but, though actually, he resides at 33/38, 3 Main Road, Raja Annamaalaipuram,Chennai-600 028, with the sole purpose of filing the case in this Court. This allegation of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1071 of 2007 has been stoutly objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9013 of 2006. Be that as it may, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a trivial issue, even if it is correct, not capable of dismissing the writ petition in W.P. No. 9013 of 2006 on that ground, since substantial questions have been raised in the writ petition. Therefore, settling this question accordingly, we shall now proceed to deal with the main aspect of the case. Point No. 1 Whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Election Commission of India are not necessary parties to these proceedings 17. The petitioners have contended that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has failed to monitor the Scheme of distribution of free colour television sets and failed to verify whether such a Scheme is in violation of law and wastage of public money. 18. The comptroller and Auditor-Generals (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service), Act, 1971 (56 of 1971) was formulated to determine the conditions of service and the duties and powers for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Article 149 of the constitution lays down that ‘the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation to the accounts of the Union and of the States and of any other authority or body as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and until provision in that behalf is so made, shall perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation to the accounts of the Union and of the states as were conferred on or exercisable by the Auditor-General of India immediately before the commencement of this constitution in relation to the accounts of the Dominion of India and of the Provinces respectively. 19. The duties and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in relation to the. 19. The duties and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in relation to the. accounts of the Union and of the States continue to be governed by the provisions of the Government of India (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, which remains in force in view of the. provisions of Article 149 of the Constitution. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is empowered under the Constitution only to audit the accounts of the Union and of the States and he has not been vested with the power or authority to question the policy decision of the Government and only after the performance or, any scheme, the Comptroller and Auditor-General can audit the accounts of the same. Therefore, as has been rightly argued on the part of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, we hold that the comptroller and Auditor-General is not a necessary party to these writ petitions, in the light of the prayer sought for in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed as against the Comptroller and Auditor-General, being an unnecessary party. 20. On behalf of the Election commission of India it has been argued that they are only formal parties and since no relief has been sought for against them nor even any allegation has been made against them, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as against them. However, since the allegation, of the petitioners is that the promise made by the 6th respondent in their election manifesto amounts to corrupt practices and if the same, is held to be proved, the proper party to initiate action, against: the 8th respondent would be the Election Commission of India, it cannot be held that the Election Commission of India is not a necessary party to these writ petitions and it is to be held that they are proper parties to the writ petitions. This point is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file these writ petitions as probono publico 21. It has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that these writ petitions have been filed at the instigation of political adversaries of the 8th respondent and prayed to dismiss the above writ petition. This point is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file these writ petitions as probono publico 21. It has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that these writ petitions have been filed at the instigation of political adversaries of the 8th respondent and prayed to dismiss the above writ petition. Much has been argued on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners are not the persons aggrieved and it is only a publicity interest litigation, not aimed at espousing any cause, of the public and therefore, these writ petitions should be dismissed as not maintainable. 22. This Court is aware of the principles evolved by the Apex Court in relation to Public interest Litigations by the Apex Court, which are well summarised in Guruvayoor Devasvom Managing Committee v. C. K. Rajan AIR 2004 SC 561 : (2003) 7 SCC 546 , wherein it has also been held that ‘it is not intended to lay down any strict rule as to the scope and extent of a public interest litigation, as each case has to be judged on its own merits. Furthermore, different problems may have to be dealt with differently.‘ Therefore, all the cases cannot be put in a straight jacket, since each case has to be judged on its own merits. In the considered opinion of this Court, this case cannot be said to be falling outside the scope of public interest litigation, since a larger question of public interest has been raised by the petitioners that the interest of the public and the public money at large is at stake because of wastage of exchequer by the State Government. When such a reasonable apprehension is expressed by the petitioners, involving the question of wastage of public money, this Court feels that the writ petitions are well maintainable as probono publico. Therefore, the argument advanced on the part of the learned Additional Advocate General that since the writ petitioners failed to show legal injury to anybody, these writ petitions shall be dismissed as not maintainable, cannot be appreciated, since, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have raised reasonable apprehensions of miscarriage of public funds, which, if proved, would require our interference. 23. 23. Furthermore, just for the argument advanced on the part of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners have filed the writ petitions at the instigation of political adversaries of the 8th respondent, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. For this purpose, we draw inspiration from the observations of the Apex Court in J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu AIR 1999 SC 2330 : (1999) 1 SCC 53 , wherein it has been held: “any taxpayer in the State has a right to challenge misuse or improper use of any public property by anyone, including the political party in power, where large sums of taxpayers money had been spent. ….” 24. Further, in K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police AIR 2004 SC 524 : (2004) 3 SCC 767 , wherein it has been held; “In a democracy, the political, opponents play an important role both inside and outside the House. They are the watchdogs of the Government in power. It will be their effective weapon to counter the misdeeds and mischiefs of the Government in power. They are the mouthpiece to ventilate the grievances of the public at large, if genuinely and unbiasedly projected. In that view of the matter, being a political opponent, the petitioner is a vitally interested party in the running of the Government or in the administration of criminal justice in the State. The petition lodged by such persons cannot be brushed aside on the allegation of a political vendetta …” Therefore, since in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have raised many considerable questions of wastage of public money, which would require our interference, if proved, we hold that these writ petitions are well maintainable as probono publico. This point is, thus, answered in favour of the petitioners. Point No. 3 (Whether the promises made by the political parties in their election manifestos would amount to ‘corrupt practices‘ as per Section 123 of Representation of People Act 1951) 25. As stated above, the main challenge to the distribution of free CTVs, as announced by the eighth respondent in its election manifesto, was that the expenditure to be incurred for the implementation of the Scheme is a wasteful and unproductive expenditure on the state Exchequer and ultra vires the fiscal provisions adumbrated in the Constitution of India. 26. As stated above, the main challenge to the distribution of free CTVs, as announced by the eighth respondent in its election manifesto, was that the expenditure to be incurred for the implementation of the Scheme is a wasteful and unproductive expenditure on the state Exchequer and ultra vires the fiscal provisions adumbrated in the Constitution of India. 26. It is an admitted fact that the 8th respondent even in their election manifesto have announced certain welfare measures including distribution of free colour T.Vs. to the needy and poor to know about the happenings of the world and about the information, which they get through the modem of television, to achieve self-improvement and when they assumed power after becoming successful in the elections, it has become self-obligatory on the part of the respondent to implement, the promises made by them in their election manifesto. The petitioners would brand this act of the Government as corrupt practice under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 27. Therefore, now, it has to be seen whether such a promise made, in the election manifesto of the 8th respondent amounts to ‘corrupt practice’ under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Part VII Chapter I of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with the ‘corrupt practices‘ and Chapter III deals with ‘electoral offences‘. A thorough and careful perusal of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 would make it clear that the promises made by the political parties to the voters in their election manifestos themselves does not fall within the meaning of ‘corrupt practices‘ and therefore cannot be branded as an ‘electoral offence as has been defined by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This finding of ours is fortified by a Three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Prof. Ramachandra G. Kapse v. Haribansh Ramakbal Singh AIR 1996 SC 817 : (1996) 1 SCC 206 wherein it has been held: “Ex facie contents of a manifesto, by itself, cannot be a corrupt practice committed by a candidate of that party.” Therefore, this argument advanced on the part of the petitioners deserve to be rejected. This point is answered accordingly. Point No. 4 (Whether the Scheme of distribution of free Colour T. Vs. This point is answered accordingly. Point No. 4 (Whether the Scheme of distribution of free Colour T. Vs. announced by the Government with budgetary allocations amounts to ‘wastage of public money‘ and what is the scope of judicial review in matters of economic policies of the Government) 28. The main core of argument advanced on the part of the petitioners is that television sets are meant only for entertainment and since Article 21 or the constitution does not mandate the State to provide any form of entertainment to its citizens, the free distribution of colour television sets by the Government amounts to unconstitutionality and wastage of exchequer. 29. This Court is unable to accept the said contention of the petitioner that television is just a modem of entertainment and nothing else. It is the common knowledge of every body that though the prime object of the television is to render entertainment, it cannot be forgotten or ignored that it is also a source of information and was successful in replacing the old modem of information i. e. the Radio. At this juncture, a judicial note has to be taken that in the present world of computers and globalisation, every information is just a mouse-click away and lack of information or knowledge about the worldly things makes a man illiterate, to its true meaning, however literate he may be. Therefore, it can, in no uncertain terms, be held that television is not just an entertainment tool but a modem of information of worldly things and a tool to promote the welfare of the people. 30. It is more relevant, at this juncture to quote the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Theatre, Dhuri v. State of Punjab (1992) Supp 1 SCC 684 , wherein a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held: “Witnessing a motion picture has become an amusement to every person, a reliever to the weary and fatigued; a reliever to the pleasure seeker; an imparter of education and enlightenment enlivening to news and current events, disseminator of scientific knowledge, perpetuator of cultural and spiritual heritage, to the teeming illiterate majority of population. Thus, cinemas have become tools to promote welfare of the people to secure and protect, as effectively as it may a social order as per directives of the state policy enjoined under Article 38 of the Constitution. Thus, cinemas have become tools to promote welfare of the people to secure and protect, as effectively as it may a social order as per directives of the state policy enjoined under Article 38 of the Constitution. Mass media, through motion picture has thus become the vehicle of coverage to disseminate cultural heritage knowledge, etc.” Following the above judgment of the Apex Court, it is to be reiterated that in the present world of globalisation and information, television has become an imparter of education and enlightenment enlivening to news and current events to the teeming illiterate majority of population and thus became a tool to promote welfare of the people to secure, and protect as effectively as it may a social order as per the directives of the state policy enjoined under Article 38 of the Constitution and no longer it can be considered as a mere entertainment tool. 31. Social and Economic democracy is the foundation on which political democracy would be a way of life in the Indian polity. Law as a social engineering is to create just social order removing inequalities in social and economic life, socio-economic disabilities with which- poor people are languishing by providing positive opportunities and facilities to individuals and groups of people. The directive principles of State policy also enjoin the State to temper the legislation towards securing a social order conducive to the promotion of social and economic equality, eliminating as far as may be, the existing inequalities between different strata in the society. In the considered opinion of this Court, this Scheme, announced by the Government to distribute free colour T.Vs. to the needy is a pointer in the same direction of promoting economic equality. Furthermore, as has been held by the Apex Court in R. G. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675 , the Court must, while examining the constitutional. validity of a legislation/Scheme of this kind be resilient - not rigid, forward looking - not static, liberal not verbal and the Courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies. validity of a legislation/Scheme of this kind be resilient - not rigid, forward looking - not static, liberal not verbal and the Courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies. Therefore, we hold that the Scheme of the Government to distribute free colour T.V. to the needy and poor is towards achieving the social justice, to secure and protect as effectively as it may a social order, as per the directives of the State policy enjoined under Article 38 of the Constitution. 32. In J. P. Unnikrishnan v. State of A. P. AIR 1993 SC 2178 : (1993) 1 SCC 645 , a Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court has observed: “Education means knowledge and ‘knowledge itself is power‘. As rightly observed by JOHN ADAMS, “the preservation of means of Knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country” (DISSERTATION ON CANON AND FEUDAL LAW, 1765). It is this concern which seems to underline Article 46. It is the tyrants and bad rulers who are afraid of spread of education and knowledge among the deprived classes. Witness Hitler railing against universal education. He said: “Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction” (RAUSCHNING, THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION: HITLER SPEAKS). A true democracy is one where education is universal, where people understand what is good for them and the nation and know how to govern themselves. The three Articles 45, 46 and 41 are designed to achieve the said goal among others.” 33. The preamble to the Constitution contains the solemn resolve to secure to all its citizens, inter alia economic and social justice along with equality of status and. opportunity. The expression, “socialist” was intentionally introduced in the preamble by the constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 with the. principal aim of eliminating inequality in income and status and standards of life. The emphasis on economic equality in our socialist welfare, society has to pervade all interpretations made in. the context of any challenge based on hostile discrimination. 34. opportunity. The expression, “socialist” was intentionally introduced in the preamble by the constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 with the. principal aim of eliminating inequality in income and status and standards of life. The emphasis on economic equality in our socialist welfare, society has to pervade all interpretations made in. the context of any challenge based on hostile discrimination. 34. InTara Chand Vyas v. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority (1997) 4 SCC 565 , the Apex Court has observed: “Economic empowerment is a fundamental right of the weaker Sections of the people, in particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ensured under Article 46 as a part of social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution; the State is enjoined to promote their welfare effectuated under Article 38. Distribution of material resources to elongate that purpose envisaged in Article 39(b) is the means for the development of the weaker sections.” 35. In State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490 : (1976) 2 SCC 310 : 1976-I- LLJ-376, the Constitutional Bench (Seven- Judges Bench) of the Apex Court has observed that “weaker Sections means not every backward class but those dismally depressed categories comparable economically and educationally to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.” 36. As has been observed by the Apex Court in Samatha v. State of A. P. AIR 1997 SC 3297 : (1997) 8 SCC 191 , India being an active participant in the. successful declaration of the Convention on Right to Development and a party signatory thereto, it is its duty to formulate its policies, legislative, or executive, accord equal attention to the promotion of, and to protect the right to social, economic, civil and. cultural rights of the people, in particular, the poor, the Dalits and Tribes as enjoined in Article 46 read with Articles 38, 39 and all other related articles read with the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By that constant endeavour and interaction, right to life would become meaningful so as to realise its full potentiality of person as inalienable human right and to raise the standard of living, improve excellence and to live with dignity of person and of equal status with social and economic justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, the trinity are pillars to establish the egalitarian social order in Socialist Secular Democratic Bharat Republic. 37. 37. In Samatha v. State of A. P. (Supra) the Apex Court has observed: “It is necessary to consider at this juncture the meaning of the word socialism envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution. Establishment of the egalitarian social order through rule of law is the basic structure of the Constitution. The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are the means, as two wheels of the chariot, to achieve the above object of democratic socialism. The word socialist used in the Preamble, must be read from the goals Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 38, 39, 46 and all other cognate articles seek to establish, i. e., to reduce inequalities in income and status and to provide equality of opportunity and facilities, social justice enjoins the Court to uphold the Governments endeavour to remove economic inequalities, to provide, decent standard of living to the poor and to protect the interests of the weaker Sections of the society so as to assimilate all the Sections of the society in a secular integrated socialist Bharat with dignity of person and equality of status to all.” “The core constitutional objective of social and economic democracy in other words, just social order, cannot be established without removing the inequalities in income and making endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status through the rule of law. The mandate for social and economic retransformation requires that the material resources or their ownership and control should be so distributed as to subserve the common good. A new social order, thereby, would emerge, out of the old unequal or hierarchical social order. Legislative or executive measures, therefore, should be necessary for the reconstruction of the unequal social order by corrective and distributive justice through the rule of law.” “Justice is an attribute of human conduct. Law, as a social engineering, is to remedy existing imbalances, as a vehicle to establish an egalitarian social order in a Socialist Secular Bharat Republic, The Upanishad says that, Let all be happy and healthy, let all be blessed with happiness. and let none be unhappy. Bhagwadgeeta preaches through Yudhishthira that: I do not long for kingdom, heaven or rebirth but I wish to alleviate the sufferings of the unfortunate. PROF. and let none be unhappy. Bhagwadgeeta preaches through Yudhishthira that: I do not long for kingdom, heaven or rebirth but I wish to alleviate the sufferings of the unfortunate. PROF. FRIEDLANDER in his INTRODUCTION OF SOCIAL WELFARE at p. 6 states that social welfare is the organised system of social service and institutions are designed to aid individuals and groups to attain specified standard of life and health and personal and social relationship which permit them to develop their full capacities and to promote their well-being in harmony with the needs of their families and the community. Welfare state is a Rubicon between unbridled individualism and communism. All human rights are derived front the dignity of the person and his inherent worth. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution have fused in them as fundamental human rights as indivisible and interdependent. The Constitution has charged the state, to provide facilities and opportunities among the people and groups of people to remove social and economic inequality and to improve equality of status. Article 39(b) enjoins the State to direct its policy towards securing distribution of the ownership and control of the material resources of the community as best to subserve the common good. The founding fathers with hindsight, engrafted with prognosis, not only inalienable human rights as part of the Constitution but also charged the State as its policy to remove obstacles, disabilities and inequalities for human development and positive actions to provide opportunities, facilities to develop human dignity and equality of status and of opportunity for social and economic democracy. Economic and social equality is a facet of liberty without which meaningful life would be hollow and a mirage.” It has also been held in the above judgment: “Declaration of Right to Development Convention adopted by the United Nations and ratified by India, by Article 1 right to development became part or an inalienable human right. By virtue, thereof, every human person and all people are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms would be fully realised. Clause (2) thereof provides that the human right to development also implied the full realisation of the right of the people to improve their natural wealth and resources. Clause (2) thereof provides that the human right to development also implied the full realisation of the right of the people to improve their natural wealth and resources. Article 2(1) provides that the human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development. Clause (2) says that all human beings have a responsibility for development, individually and collectively, taking into account the need for full respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as their duties to the community, which alone can ensure free and complete fulfilment of the human being and they should, therefore, promote and protect an appropriate political, social and economic order for development. Clause (3) thereof provides that the States have the right and the duty to formulate appropriate national development policies that, aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals, on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefits resulting therefrom.” “Article 3(1) recognises and enjoins that it is the States primary responsibility to create conditions favourable to the realisation of the right to development. Under Clause (3) thereof, it reminds the States of their duty to co-operate with each other and of ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. Article 6(2) reassures that human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible and interdependent, equal attention and urgent consideration should be given to the implementation, promotion and protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and clause (3) thereof enjoins that the states should take steps to eliminate obstacles to development. Article 8 enjoins that the State should undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for the realisation of the right to development and shall ensure inter alia equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income. It also provides that an appropriate economic and social reform should be carried out with a view to eradicating all social injustice. Article 9 gives a right declaring that all the aspects of the right to development set forth in the present declaration are indivisible and interdependent and each of them should be. It also provides that an appropriate economic and social reform should be carried out with a view to eradicating all social injustice. Article 9 gives a right declaring that all the aspects of the right to development set forth in the present declaration are indivisible and interdependent and each of them should be. considered in the context of the whole, and Article 10 concludes and reminds the State of its duty to take steps to ensure them the full exercise and progressive enhancement of the right to development including the formulation, adoption and implement at ion of policy, legislative and other measures at the national levels. The Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution are forerunners to the Convention.” 38. The respondents 6 and 8 would contend that the decision of distributing free colour T.V. being a policy decision, is not amenable to judicial review. In Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) India Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 640 , the Apex Court has rejected the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the policy decision of a State cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review. But, laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc., as has been held by the Apex Court R. G. Garg v. Union of India (supra) . 39. Regarding the scope of judicial review in matters of economic activities, the Apex Court has held in the above judgment; “The Court cannot possibly assess or evaluate what would be the iiopact of a particular immunity or exemption and whether it would serve the purpose in view or not. There are so many imponderables that would enter into the. determination that it would be wise for the Court not to hazard, an opinion, where even economists may differ. The Court must while examining the constitutional validity of a legislation of this kind be resilient not rigid, forward looking, not static, liberal, not verbal and the Court roust always bear in mind the constitutional proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Munn v. Illinois Munn v. Illinois Munn v. Illinois (94-US-13) namely, that Courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies. The Court must defer to legislative judgment in matters relating to social and economic policies and must not interfere, unless the exercise of legislative judgment appears to be palpably arbitrary.” 40. This Court is aware that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction, ordinarily, must remind itself of the doctrine of separation of powers which, however, although does not mean that the Court shall not step in any circumstance whatsoever, but the Court while exercising its power must also remind itself about the rule of self-restraint. The Court ordinarily is reluctant to assume the functions of the statutory functionaries. It allows them to perform their duties at the first instance. The Court steps in by mandamus when the State fails to perform its duty. 41. In this case, pursuant to assuming the office, being victorious in the elections, the Government made a provision of Rs. 750 crore in the budget, with the assent of the Legislative Assembly, for implementing the said Scheme, and no member of the Legislative Assembly has opposed it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allocation of the funds by the Government in the budget which got the assent of the Legislative Assembly unopposed by any of its democratically Elected Members, itself is bad since the Government is authorised to spend the amounts for the said scheme by virtue of the budget allocations. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to a Division Bench judgment; of the Bombay High Court in Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar v. Balkrishna Jagannath Kinikar and Others Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar v. Balkrishna Jagannath Kinikar and Others Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar v. Balkrishna Jagannath Kinikar and Others AIR 1961 Bom. 167 . In the said judgment, a sales tax practitioner filed a writ petition against the state of Bombay seeking to prohibit: it from expending public funds for the defence, of the respondents 1 and 2 therein who are. Assistant Commissioners of Sales Tax in the State of Bombay. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, considering all the pros and cons of the aspect, has held: “a tax payer has no right to challenge expenditure of public monies by Government. Article 282 of the Constitution confers a very wide discretion on a State Government. It is for the State Government to decide what is public purpose and what is not a public purpose. Article 282 of the Constitution confers a very wide discretion on a State Government. It is for the State Government to decide what is public purpose and what is not a public purpose. It is true that Rule 189 is one of those rules which has been framed, by the Government for indicating a public purpose for which public funds may be expended by it. But that, rule, is not one which curtails the powers of the Government conferred upon it by Article 282 of the Constitution. It can only be regarded as a rule for the guidance of Government servants and nothing more. If the Government purports to spend money for a purpose, which it characterises as a public purpose though in point of fact it is not a public purpose, the proper place to criticise the action of the Government would be the legislature or the Appropriation Committee. The Courts are not the forum in which the Governments action could be sought to be criticised or restrained. The business of governing the State is entrusted by the Constitution to the executive Government. How to spend public monies is part of the executive functions of the Government and it is not permissible to the High Court to interfere with the powers of the Government in this respect under Article 226 of the Constitution…. An expenditure by Government will be deemed to be authorized if in the budget and in the Appropriation Acts there is a necessary provision for spending money on the particular acts.” We are in conformity with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that it is for the State Government to decide what is public purpose and what is not a public purpose. 42. InUGAR Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Others UGAR Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Others UGAR Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Others AIR 2001 SC 1447 : (2001) 3 SCC 635 , the Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held: “In area of tax and economic regulation, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not deference, to judgment of the executive.” 43. In BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others AIR 2002 SC 350 : (2002) 2 SCC 333 : 2002-I-LLJ-550, the Apex Court, while considering the scope of judicial review in matters of economic policy decisions of the Government, has held: “Unless decision is contrary to any statutory provision or the constitution, Court cannot interfere with it. Court cannot examine relative merits of different economic policies and cannot strike down a policy merely on ground that another policy would, have been fairer and better.” “… public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government, in exercise of their administrative” …. Judicial interference by way of pil is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or: statutory obligations OR the part of the Government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reforms, the Court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public, interest or curiosity cannot be subject-matter of PIL. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of Constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties.” “……. in a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. … Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the Court, it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved…. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the constitution in other words, it is not for the Courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved in matters relating to economic issues, the Government has, while taking a decision, right to “trial and error” as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within limits of” authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the Courts. 44. Following the above dictums laid down by the Apex Court, we hold that since the Scheme of distribution of colour T.Vs. announced by the Government, for which budgetary allocations were also made and approved by the State Legislative Assembly, unquestioned by any of its democratically elected members, is with the proved object of upliftment of the poor, needy and underprivileged to render social justice, to make them aware of the worldly happenings as per the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in the Constitution, a free hand should be given to the Government in spending public moneys for such public purposes. Courts cannot poke their nose in each and every activity of the Government, particularly in the economic activities of the Government, under the garb of judicial review, cutting short the powers of the Executive, enshrined under the constitution and assume the powers of Executive to itself, dictating dos and don‘ts to it, even in matters where no illegality or mala fide action has been shown or established. The Courts, normally, cannot act as executive bodies, particularly when no mala fides or misdeeds on the part of the Government are established, as in this case. Thus, the scope of judicial review, in matters of economic activities of the State, is very limited and the Courts cannot substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies and in taking a policy decision in economic matters at length, the principles of natural justice have no role to play. In this case, no case is made out by the petitioners that the decision of the Government to distribute free colour T.Vs. In this case, no case is made out by the petitioners that the decision of the Government to distribute free colour T.Vs. to the deprived and underprivileged, is in any way capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uniformed, except to allege that it amounts to wastage of exchequer, which we are not able to appreciate, for the reasons mentioned supra and since the directive principles of State policy also enjoin, the State to temper the legislation towards securing a social order and since, as has been observed supra, the televisions have become tools to promote welfare of the people, to secure and protect as effectively as it may, a social order as per directives of the State Policy enjoined under Article 38 of the Constitution. 45. To sum-up, we find that the election manifesto of the respondent promising distribution of free colour T.Vs. to the eligible candidates cannot be called as a corrupt and illegal practice and that T.V. can no longer be treated only as an entertainment tool but as an instrument to enrich the people of worldly affairs. Since the State is bound by the constitutional obligations towards eliminating inequality in income and status and standards of life, further paying equal attention and urgent consideration to the implementation, promotion and protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and to take steps to eliminate obstacles to development, the action, of the Government in distributing free colour T.V., the information tool to the public, cannot be branded as a waste of exchequer. This point is answered accordingly. Point 5: (What reliefs the parties are entitled toe) For all the above discussions, we see no ground to entertain these writ petitions and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.