Judicial restraint in disinvestment policy bars public interest challenges based on vague allegations and unverified reports.

A public interest writ challenge to the disinvestment of VSNL, based on newspaper reports and vague allegations, was found unsupported by verified facts. The Delhi HC noted that judicial review of economic and disinvestment policy is limited and requires concrete proof of illegality, mala fides, or constitutional or statutory violation. The provisions invoked, including Articles 298 and 299 of the Constitution, Section 70 of the Contract Act, and Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, did not provide a basis to invalidate the transaction or the transfer of shares. The court also noted that the company's telegraph licence and corporate identity were not destroyed by the change in shareholding, and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable on the materials presented.

---

---

Issues: Whether a public interest writ petition based on newspaper reports and vague allegations could be entertained to challenge the disinvestment of VSNL and the validity of the transaction under Articles 298 and 299 of the Constitution, Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

Analysis: The pleadings were not founded on verified facts but on newspaper reports and unsubstantiated apprehensions. The challenge was, in substance, to a governmental economic policy decision relating to disinvestment, a in which judicial review is limited and courts are to act with restraint unless illegality, mala fides, or constitutional/statutory violation is shown. The provisions invoked did not furnish a basis to interfere with the disinvestment policy or to treat the transfer of shares as invalid. The telegraph licence remained with the company, and a change in shareholding did not destroy its corporate identity or licence. The petition also failed to disclose any concrete factual foundation warranting inquiry in public interest litigation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the materials presented and disclosed no ground for judicial interference with the disinvestment decision; it was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not entertain a public interest challenge to an economic or disinvestment policy in the absence of concrete facts showing illegality, mala fides, or violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

---